Kodak 1a Pocket Folder with Stylus
Photo thanks to Chip Middleton ozziemaxx@aol.com

Related Links:
LF Wide Angle Lenses (QTL's site)
Kodak #3A Manual (courtesy of Richard Urmonas) [5/2002]

A Budget 6x12+cm Panoramic Camera with Shifts for under $50???

These cameras are already setup for panoramic photography, with panoramic ratios of 2.4 to 1 (#122) or 2 to 1 (#116). The #122 rollfilm format was roughly 3 1/4" x 5 1/2", permitting direct contact prints the size of postcards. Using 120 rollfilm, you get from a 6x12cm up to a 6x14cm (55mm x 130+mm) image size.

Although the 5 1/2" format axis suggests a 14cm sized opening, my own Kodak #3A model C panoramic camera features a film gate more like 12cm in length, possibly foreshortened to provide for the autographic feature. This autographic feature is a small flap that flips up, permitting you to write notes on the film (which had a black surface for recording). On some other camera models, you may get the full 14cm (5 1/2") width, which would be a plus. While the actual format on film is 5.5cm x 12cm, the printing ratio is expressed as 6cm x 13cm (about 9% longer and wider due to rounding off 5.5cm as 6cm). See MF Formats in the MF-FAQ for other actual film size versus printing ratio values.

I call this camera the Postcard Panoramic Camera. The #116 cameras produce 2 1/2" x 4 1/4" sized images. Using 120 rollfilm, you get 6x12cm format images. Since it is smaller, I call this the compact panoramic camera.

You don't have to do anything to modify either the camera body or lens to make them into panoramic cameras. We just have to come up with a simple way to use 120 rollfilm in these cameras to put them back to use as panoramic cameras.

Film Adapters

A simple wooden dowel based adapter piece is all it takes to convert the camera to 120 rollfilm. This idea and solution was published in Shutterbug in April, 1990 issue (page 147) by Judge Marty Magid. If you would prefer to purchase ready-made adapters, see adapter information (section 7) for his address. You can also follow our instructions there to make your own simple adapters, using a dowel rod.

Permanent Adaptations

You could recycle the 120 film spool guides from an older 120 rollfilm camera such as a low cost Kodak brownie ($5 in garage sales). Now file, epoxy, and carefully center mount these scavanged 120 film guides into the older camera. This approach would work especially well with the compact panoramic camera design, where there is only 1/4" vertical slack in the film channel. You could also use your scavanged 120 film guides on the adapter ends of the postcard panoramic camera. In both cases, the film winding and rewinding mechanics end up working as before, just with 120 rollfilm instead of the wider #116 or #122 rollfilms respectively.

Minimalist Adaptations

You can simply put a 120 rollfilm in the camera and mate to a matching 120 film empty spool engaged by the film winding knob on the Kodak #3A camera. Naturally, the 120 film spools are about an inch too short to engage the far end of the #122 film spool round guides. You need some sort of spacer (fat dowel end?) to keep the 120 rollfilm spools from being loose in the longer #122 film spool channel.

This minimal approach also "costs" a bit of the 120 film width, which runs along the top edge of the camera. But this may provide a flatter film run due to the support along this same edge (try this trick if you have film flatness concerns). However, I should note that on my Kodak #3A, there is a thin metal rod under which the rollfilm goes before going across the open film gate, then under another similar rod at the other end to the take-up spool. This film winding process is a useful alternative to precise pressure plates.

You can either put in some sort of spacer or a spring (e.g., fat round dowel an inch or so long cut to fit) that permits rotation, or build a slightly more complex film adapter as suggested below. Another option is to use an existing #122 empty film spool as the take-up spool for a standard 120 rollfilm. The hole in the #122 film spool is centered, and easily takes up the film from the 120 rollfilm. Naturally, in this case you would want some sort of pair of adapters on either side of the 120 rollfilm spool to keep it centered. You would also need to do home processing from the #122 spool loaded with 120 rollfilm, or make arrangements with the commercial processors. You could also simply use a film changing bag to spool the 120 rollfilm off the #122 film spool and onto an empty 120 film spool for regular processing.

Ruby Windows and Removable Backs

On some cameras models (e.g., my Kodak #3A model C), the rear back removes entirely to permit mounting a ground glass and sheet film adapter. This feature can be handy to check lens focusing (including centering the lens vertically). The Kodak #3A has a lens mount that permits moving the lens up and down (vertical shift) which can be used in addition to the film shifting techniques described below. Removing the back and checking with ground glass (no film inside, obviously) makes it easy to see what you should get on film.

Removable Adapters

One factor making it easy to create removable adapters is the ability to use empty 120 rollfilm adapters, since they neatly fit the camera's rotating #122 film guides (as noted above). For example, you can cut a standard empty 120 rollfilm spool so only one inch remains from each end. Use a dremel drill and grinding bit to grind away the precise amount you need. Use some plumbing epoxy (very solid) to solidly epoxy a small metal screw to the adapter. The round part of the screw should fit into the round holes of the 120 rollfilm spool (with film). A pair of nuts on the screw can be moved to precisely position the length of the entire 120 rollfilm plus adapter combination so it exactly fits the #122 rollfilm channel.

The full 120 rollfilm film supply spool should be able to turn freely on the two round supply side film guides on the Kodak #3A camera. Incidentally, these guides can be pulled out to make them flush with the base of the camera, then released to mate with the properly positioned film spool which fits flush in the camera. So you can make a solid 120 rollfilm and adapter combination that matches the longer #122 rollfilm length, yet still get it into the camera easily using this trick.

On the other side of the film channel, the empty 120 rollfilm takeup spool and adapter(s) should be positioned to an identical vertical position (to prevent film buckling from moving sideways across the film channel). You may want to use a flat blade (e.g., from a broken screwdriver) epoxied to the end of the 120 rollfilm adapter which mates with the flat-bladed film winding guide. This blade should obviously fit the 1/2" or so width of the 120 film spool flat channel, and not be too long or too short to prevent engaging easily. Remember that it is only this one flat blade engaging the film spool that provides the turning and motion of the film in the camera. The other round film guide ("bumps") just let the film spools turn easily in proper position.

Cheap Fix for Film Flatness

Before you dismiss this glass plate idea as too problematic, consider the older Hasselblad polaroid backs. Unfortunately for Hasselblad, the standard Polaroid mechanism couldn't be mounted at the desired film plane position. So a thick uncoated glass plate was used to channel the light to the recessed polaroid film position. The glass plate was also a flat surface too. Zillions of proof photos, and quite a few Polaroid negatives (from positive/negative films like P/N 655..) have been shot in such older Polaroid glass plate backs. If it is good enough for Hasselblad users, it should be good enough for us too!

Simply get a piece of thin glass from a glass supply house (glazier) cut to fit snugly in your camera. Be sure to get them to polish at least the two edges over which the film will move to eliminate scratching of the film. Given the small size of glass needed (8cm x 12cm+), costs are often surprisingly low (under $10 US). Even better, some glass sources (see notes below) can provide thin glass plates which are coated to reduce reflections for a small extra cost.

The glass is mounted under the film, between the film and the camera lens. The size of glass is such that it can fit on the old, larger film channel. You want the glass to stay in place. Some household cement can keep it in place with a few dabs on top of the glass and onto the camera body. But don't put the cement under the glass, as you want it to be held flatly against the camera back and old film channel. Any cement under the glass would produce non-flat results depending on varying thickness, so don't get any under there!

The glass acts as if it were a clear filter behind the lens. Lots of low and mid-cost camera filters are made from plate glass. So don't worry that your image will be visibly effected. Typically, filters behind a lens cause a small focus shift, roughly equal to a third the thickness of the glass itself. You therefore want relatively thin glass, which also has fewer unrelieved stresses and better optical properties. But you don't want the glass to be too thin, as it could break too easily (e.g., below 5mm thick?).

With the glass glued in place, the film cannot now bulge in the center as it might have before without such a flat support. A bit of padding on the back of the camera can help force the film into contact with the flat glass plate. If you have some camera mirror foam strips of 5mm or so thickness (e.g., from Fargo Enterprises) you may find these self-adhesive pads work well here too. But you can use whatever padding you want as long as it is not too thick and flexible. The 120 rollfilm has a paper backing preventing you from scratching the rear of the film. While it may be obvious only after you make such a modification (ahem), it helps to remember to cut or leave an opening so you can still see the film positioning numbers on the paper rollfilm back through the ruby (red) window!

You don't want too much pressure, so you don't get scratches when you advance the film. You may find that the camera back is flexible enough that simply pressing in with fingers or thumbs on the rear of the camera back, while shooting handheld or on a tripod, will supply enough force to flatten out the film against the glass and under the foam back or other padding. Releasing that pressure while you advance the film prevents scratches. Simple!

Naturally, you need to check the film position and focusing with the added flat glass sheet in place. Again, this is easily done with a small sheet of ground glass (also available cheaply from the glass supply house) and a loupe or other magnifier. The ground glass goes so the ground glass surface is where the film would be when pressed down on the back of the glass plate (e.g., flipped so it is closer to the camera lens, not the viewer's eye).

You may have to adjust the position of the lens slightly to achieve optimal infinity focus (possibly with unscrewing the lens slightly or adding a shim under the mount). Moreoften, you can simply adjust the focusing positions by sliding the lens on its existing focusing mount. Simply relabel the correct new positions for different distances on a paper scale sheet next to the old focusing distance markings. When done, cover with scotch tape or other waterproof covering. Since most panoramics are not used for closeups, but chiefly at infinity focus, the infinity focus point is the really critical point you need to establish.

If this plate glass idea sounds crazy, it is actually an old trick. The Rolleiflex TLRs had an accessory glass plate that could be used to improve film flatness. Thin glass plates have been used in large format enlargers to minimize film bulging during enlarging for years. Problems with flatness in some medium format cameras were cured using similar flat glass plates between the film and the lens (see Hans Maersk-Muller's How to Flatten Your Film for Sharper Pictures in Modern Photography of April 1970 (pp.78-9, 120).

I don't understand why this film flattening solution isn't wider known and used, but perhaps this page will help spread the word? The alternative panoramic homebrew cameras often use very expensive 6x12cm and 6x17cm rollfilm backs, or modify and build one from scratch or torpedo cameras. By comparison, this simple glass plate technique costs very little, is easy to do, and requires no precision tools or machining. You also don't have to build anything more complex than a rollfilm adapter to use the rest of the older folder cameras mechanics and mountings either. You are still way ahead even if you elect to put in a wider lens (such as the low cost 90mm Angulon which can cover 150mm on rollfilm without movements). For most folks, this postcard panoramic camera will serve as an easy project and low cost introduction to medium format panoramic photography.

Cheap Fix for Hazy Older Lenses

On most of these older folder lenses, the front and rear elements will simply unscrew. You probably don't need to do anything more than clean the inner (and outer) lens surfaces. Don't try to disassemble the lens elements beyond the simple unscrewed front and back element level. A pencil mark or two will help ensure you get them back in place in the right alignment. Once cleaned (using Kodak lens paper to wet and dry), the lenses may well sparkle like new!

While you have hopefully tested your postcard camera before buying to ensure the lens diaphragm and shutter speeds worked properly, you may find some of Mr. Romney's repair books and related resources (possibly in your local library?) to be handy. You might get stuck with an Ebay non-working "minty bargain" that doesn't work as advertised. As long as the shutter speeds are consistent, you can probably adjust your film speed as used on a handheld meter to produce usable exposures. It is much easier to adjust the exposure than to clean up and repair an older leaf shutter mechanism the first time!

Cheap Fix for Flare

Film Shifting - A New Idea?

Film shifting produces essentially the same result as lens shifting. You are able to control certain optical distortions such as converging lines in your photographs. If you are familiar with the benefits of shift lenses, then you will realize what a great advantage a shift camera has over other fixed and non-shifting models.

With a shift lens, we hold the film in place in a rigid film channel and move or shift the lens up or down vertically. Moving the lens up or down moves the part of the image formed by the lens up or down on the film. As you move the lens up, the top part of an image will be shifted down onto the film. Usually, shifting a lens up is a great way to keep the camera level while eliminating converging vertical lines, but still get the top of a building or other subject into the image.

Film shifting is the other way to do it. With film shifting, you leave the lens in place, and shift the film up and down in the film channel. If you think of the lens' circle of coverage, you can either leave the film fixed in place and shift the lens up or down, or you can leave the lens in place and shift the film behind it up or down. Either way, you can move the film relative to the lens circle of coverage to place the film where you want it in that lens circle of coverage circular image (at least up and down-wise). Make sense?

The big advantage of film shifting is you don't need a custom kilo-buck lens specially designed with shift mechanisms to move the lens up and down. You just need a camera with a wide film channel in which you can move the film up and down, and a lens that can cover this full range of film shifting movements.

If it is easier to shift the film than the lens, then why doesn't anybody do it? The short answer here is nobody wants a bigger heavier camera, so the cameras are designed to precisely fit the selected rollfilm they use. If you are going to build a rollfilm camera with a bigger size and film channel and lens coverage, you might as well use a rollfilm that fits that bigger size channel. Simply crop out a panoramic format, if that's what you want. Or crop and print the full sized print, such as the 3 1/4" x 5 1/2" postcard sized images produced by our Kodak #3A postcard cameras.

But as this shifting panoramic camera demonstrates, a one inch wider film channel and one inch bigger camera is a very small price to pay for the benefits of the resulting +/- 13mm of shift available!

How do you get this range of shifting capabilities in practice? The short answer is that you vary the size of the dowel used to mount your 120 rollfilm in the #122 camera. That's it - it is really that simple!

If you use a minimal dowel size, the film will be at the top of the 3 1/4" film channel. This position is equivalent to a -13mm shift. Since the lens inverts or flips the image, the bottom of the image is at the top of the camera. The very bottom of the image will be on the film now. The result is the same as shifting the lens -13mm downward and keeping the film fixed in place in a conventional shift lens camera.

At the other end of the film spool, you may need a corresponding bottom adapter so it fills the rest of the film channel and the film spool doesn't fall out of place. These end adapters can be velcro'd onto the bottom of the film spool, as described at our film adapter pages (see item #7). At the maximum +13mm film shift position, you don't need a bottom adapter piece at all, since the film is flush with the bottom of the camera. At shifts from circa +8mm to +13mm, you can simply use a dime, nickel or a few coins to take up that space at the bottom of the film channel and rotate freely. That is handy, as it would be inconvenient to build a small enough dowel adapter to fit.

You can probably guess that you will need one set of these 120 film adapters for the take up spool, and one set for the film supply spool on each side of the camera. But since they only cost a dollar or two to make, these film adapters aren't expensive or hard to make.

What if you add 13mm to the length of the dowel adapter (e.g., by turning a bolt into a nut a given number of turns). Now you have centered the 120 rollfilm in the center of the #122 rollfilm channel. The 120 rollfilm will have 13mm of space above it, and 13mm of space below it. The 2 1/4" width of the rollfilm and the 1" width of the spaces (13mm + 13mm ~= 1 inch) add up to the 3 1/4" width of the #122 rollfilm designed for use in the #3A postcard camera.

Finally, what if you add one inch or 26mm of length to the dowel adapter? Now you have shifted the film so it is in the bottom of the camera. Since the lens inverts the image, the top of the building or other object will now be on the film.

Here is the critical point. With that extra 26mm of extension on your dowel film adapter, you have pushed or shifted the film +13mm from its central position behind the lens. This film shifting is equivalent in its effect to moving the lens the same +13mm in an upward shift. This position is very desirable, since it can cure many problems with converging verticals in architectural photography.

How about lens coverage issues? You have plenty of lens coverage, since the lens isn't shifted at all. The lens in these cameras were designed to cover the full 3 1/4" x 5 1/2" image without vignetting.

What we are doing is similar to putting 35mm rollfilm in a Bronica 6x6cm SQAI rollfilm back. We are using only a part of the available postcard sized coverage (2 1/4" out of 3 1/4"). But because we can shift the film around in the 3 1/4" sized channel, we get to pick which part of that postcard area is used. By comparison, all of the medium format panoramic backs (such as the Bronica 35mm or Mamiya 7 rangefinder 35mm option) provide only for fixed film positions in the center of the back. Similarly, when you mount a rollfilm back in a view camera, it is fixed firmly in place (usually centered). You have to use the inherent shifting movements of the view camera lenses on their standards if you want shift lens effects.

My film shifting system lets you shift the film around. The 120 rollfilm doesn't have to be centered in the larger #122 film channel. You can move it up and down, and effectively get shift effects by doing so.

I am aware of one panoramic camera that has a fixed film channel but a permanently shifted lens. The Linhof 612 has a built-in shift (+8mm) which is permanently in place. The designers decided to compromise, assuming you would so often want or need a +8mm shift that you would want it permanently built-into the camera. Leif Ericksenn in his medium format guidebook notes that this approach makes the camera hard to use with vertical shots. When you don't need or don't want the +8mm shift, you can't get rid of it either. That's one reason the custom variable lens shift (Silvestri..) and non-shifted 6x17cm panoramic cameras are more popular.

While you can setup any desired film shift within the +13mm to -13mm range, there is one obvious issue with this approach. You have to set the film shift when you load the camera. You do this by selecting a film adapter length to put the film where you want it (center, top, bottom..). But once you close the camera, you can't change the film shift setting.

You set the desired film shift by either choosing the appropriate film adapter dowel length (minimal to 26mm), or perhaps fine-tune the setting by turning a nut in a bolt in some modified deluxe designs. In practice, you are probably going to want only the centered, +13mm maximum plus shift, and one or two intermediate shifts (+8mm). So you will only need two or three low cost dowel adapter pairs to be able to exploit a range of film shifting effects.

If this limitation of one film shift setting per roll of film seems limiting, remember the unchangeable fixed +8mm shift on the Linhof 612. Moreover, on a 6x14cm camera, you are only going to be taking 4 shots per roll of 120 rollfilm. We are using the easy peep-window film paper back numbers on 120 rollfilm for alignment and counting exposures.

If you bracket your shot and shoot a "second", you have used up the 120 rollfilm's four shots right there. Bracketing takes at least three shots, including one above and one below the ideal exposure (from a handheld meter), just in case. A "second" is a second exposure at what you think will be the ideal exposure. With a "second", you have a backup shot that is the same quality as the original, since it is a "second" original. A duplicate 6x14cm image is going to be hard to get, expensive, and inevitably will lose some quality since it is a copy of the original and not a "second" original. Even if you don't bracket, you are only going to be getting a few scenes on any one roll of 120 film when you are shooting 6x14cm images!

In short, I don't see this limitation as particularly alarming. If you are going to shoot landscapes or vertical shots, without converging verticals (like trees), then put in the adapter to center the film in the camera film channel. If you are shooting in a town, where +8mm film shifts would be handy, just use the right film adapter to get that desired shift. For times when you have tall buildings and you need all the shift you can get, set the full +13mm shift adapter in place. If you really must change from the film shift you have set, just finish the roll in place and rewind it. Reload with new film, setting the needed amount of film shift. Simple, even if it might cost you a few shots now and again. Film is cheap, at least compared to the cost of other shift lens panoramics.

Lens Shifting

While this lens centering control may offer only a limited range of vertical shifting, it does offer some range of movement (circa +/- 10 mm). That might be enough, with film shifting to provide some needed perspective controls. So while you may be limited with "film shifting" to an initial amount of shift, you may be able to add or subtract from this "film shift" factor by some range (such as 8 to 10mm or more?) thanks to the lens centering and shifting feature.

There is also a control for focusing by moving the lens horizontally against a marked focusing scale on the baseboard lens mount. What makes this factor interesting is the ease with which a shorter and wider coverage angle lens might be mounted and focused using such existing hardware. Moreover, you could give up the compact folding option to adapt a very wide angle prime lens (e.g., 90mm f/8 angulon).

Panoramic Lenses and Enlargements

You may want to consider buying the ends of ten inch wide printing paper (per a tip posting). This paper is on spools, which are exposed, cut, and processed to make ten inch wide by however long prints you want (such as 8x10" or 10"x10" wedding photos). In this case, you might make a full 10" wide image by however long your format and cropping permits. Starting with a 55mm wide image on 120 rollfilm, you can only enlarge by a factor of 4.5X to make the ten inch wide image. With our 6x14cm camera, the actual film width (see table) is 130+mm. Enlarging this dimension by 4.5X gives us a 23 inch long or nearly two foot long image. Each panoramic will have the equivalent area (and cost) of about three 8x10" prints.

Naturally, you can crop out different panoramic images and ratios by cropping instead of printing the full 55mm wide image. Cropping our 55mm wide film and using only 43mm of it will result in shifting the panoramic ratio to 3:1 (for 130mm long film width in our 6x14cm camera). So you may end up using somewhat longer prints by cropping the height, and larger enlargement ratios. But unless you have a 5x7" enlarger on a special mounting, it may be hard to get the longer length panoramic prints exposed. After that, you may also need special developing tubes or use dip processing in a darkroom to develop the panoramic prints.

If you don't have a 5x7" enlarger, your local pro photo lab should have one and be able to provide similar services. They will probably be setup to make prints with the longer 10" wide film paper rolls too. But since you will be asking for a custom service, you may get hit up for extra costs over the cost of the equivalent printing paper width of three 8x10" prints.

To get wider prints is harder, since you have to cut or crop larger pieces of photo paper (e.g., 30x40"). With a 30"x40" paper, you can enlarge to 40" long by a 7.8X factor, resulting in a 17 1/2" by 40" panoramic. A more economical approach is to split the 30x40" paper in half, using a 6.9X enlargement. You get a 15" by 35.3" print, which can be trimmed off the edges with less paper loss while cutting your costs in half.

Projecting panoramic prints is also a "deja-vu all over again" experience. You will find lantern slide projectors which can be adapted to handle various panoramic slide film shots for projection. See our medium format slide projector pages for notes and tips. You can also modify overhead projectors and other items such as enlargers to serve as makeshift projectors. The effect of a panoramic slide projected on the wall makes up for all the hassles and minor cost that this approach involves, and then some.

Quite frankly, those panoramic medium format images look rather nice just sitting on a light table. You may also find some commercial slide holders for panoramic format images available, or you can use low cost medium format clear sleeves as many photo processors do.

Standard Lens

You might not like the standard lens format, which is similar to most normal lenses on cameras (e.g., 50mm on 35mm SLR). These postcard lenses are also slow, often at f/6.3 to f/7.7 at best, but we will rarely be using them except on a tripod anyway. While focal lengths vary widely with different models, the range from 127mm to 150mm is typical. Most of these lenses are 4 element designs, and capable of producing reasonably decent photographs. They have lots of coverage, and will often cover a 4x5" film. Stopping down will minimize many aberrations of these less pricey lenses. If you are on a beer budget and want to explore large format on the ultra-cheap, these postcard folder camera lenses are the cheapest option you can find that will cover the 4x5" format.

You don't have a lot of shutter speed options on most models either. This factor means you need to pick your film speed with the expected lighting and desired f/stops and available shutter speeds in mind. But while the range is limited, the cameras were widely used under varying conditions, and will probably yield good results with careful and thoughtful use.

Flash Issues

If you elect to try and light a panoramic shot with our very wide lens options, you may need this information. Flashbulbs are available (see Bill Cress and Irish Megaflash corp and other links under flashbulbs).

Lens Replacements

While there are some 135mm telephoto lenses for panoramic camera users, they aren't nearly as popular as the wider and very-wide angle lenses. Such lenses range from ultrawide 47mm super angulons (as on my Brooks Veriwide 100, an 18mm equivalent on 35mm) to very wide 65mm and 75mm wide angles on up to 90mm superangulons.

When used on the 6x17cm cameras, the 90mm super angulon or extended coverage 90mm XL super angulon has to be used. Even then, a very pricey ($300+ to $700+) center filter is often needed to prevent dark corners or vignetting when shooting flat lighted subjects like the sky.

So I was surprised to see article by noted photo author Roger Hicks in the British Journal of Photography of January 15, 1997 titled Longfellow 6x17. The Longfellow 6x17cm (or 6x18cm) camera was made by cutting and gluing two identical 6x6cm cameras (Ensigns) together with epoxy and screws, nuts, and bolts. No, I am not making this up. If you want a long camera, the easiest way (other than my way above) is to cut and paste two short cameras together! Now add a 90mm Angulon f/6.8 lens.

You may have noticed that I didn't say 90mm f/6.8 "super" angulon above, which is a lot more pricey lens with better coverage. The newer XL version of the 90mm f/6.8 super angulon is used in some 6x17cm panoramics, although the Fuji 90mm lens reportedly has even better light falloff. But using an older 90mm f/6.8 angulon is possible because we only need 156mm of lens coverage on a fixed non-shifting 6x17cm panoramic camera. The older $250-350 US 90mm f/6.8 angulons can (barely) provide this, so there isn't much need to spend more on your homebrew Longfellow 6x17cm or 6x18cm camera.

If a 90mm f/6.8 lens can cover 156mm on a 6x17cm camera, it can certainly cover 130mm or 6x14cm on our Postcard Panoramic Camera. The lens focal length is also closer to the standard lens (typically 121-127mm or so). This factor will make it easier to mount without having to get into wider bellows (e.g., with 47mm and 65mmm and 75mm lenses). But you will have to worry about projecting bellows cover getting in the image in some cases. If you elect to try the more expensive and wider lenses, you will probably end up replacing the bellows and permanently modifying the case.

Are View Camera Lenses Overkill?

But recall my points on the limited degree of enlargement to be expected by the typical amateur photographer user. Most of us will only get 4.5X enlargements onto 24 by 10 inch print sizes. Lots of times, you will only be looking at the original 55x130mm film itself on a lightbox, or making contact prints. So you may not be getting all the benefit out of those kilo-buck very wide 5x7" coverage lenses.

For those few times when you really need a top of the line image for a commercial client, consider renting one (and tax deducting the whole deal). Otherwise, you may end up with a $17,000+ investment in a panoramic 6x17cm camera and wider lenses that you only use too infrequently to justify buying.

My Lens Adapter Approach

The advantage of wide and ultrawide lens mount adapters is that they are very cheap, especially compared to the lenses they mimic or replace. I have purchased both 0.6X and 0.42X adapters for under $25 US (in 1999 and 2000) from camera dealers and on EBAY. So if you try this approach and don't like it, you can always resell these optics with little or no money losses.

The 0.6x lens converts your normal lens into a wide angle lens roughly equivalent to a 30mm on a 35mm SLR system. Simply multiply the adapter factor (0.6X) times the normal lens focal length (50mm lens on 35mm SLR) to get the equivalent wide angle lens (here, 30mm). For a 0.42X adapter, you end up with a very wide 21mm lens equivalent on a 35mm SLR. That transformation is a pretty big one for the small $25 US or so cost of the adapter.

Using these same adapters on a #122 camera lens of 127mm focal length, covering 3 1/4" x 5 1/2" (or circa 4x5"), is much more impressive in terms of financial and optical gains. Using the recommended 0.6X adapter on a 127mm lens converts it to seeing the equivalent of a 76mm lens - effectively the field of view of the popular 75mm view camera lenses. The 0.42X adapter drops you to 53mm ultrawide for a large format (4x5") equivalent lens.

There is also a modest expense ($25) 0.5X adapter, not as extreme or as distorted as the 0.42x ultrawide adapter, but wider than the 0.6X. This adapter used with the 127mm normal lens will yield about a 63mm equivalent optic field of view, very close to the popular and very pricey, very wide view camera optics. So you have a wide range of adapter choices worth experimenting upon to see the effects they produce.

You may also see a more expensive true fisheye adapter (180 degree adapter). This device produces a circular fisheye image on film. While it might have some unusual applications in our panoramic cameras, it is expensive ($50-100+) and has greatly reduced coverage in the central region only of most lenses. You do get the circular (not rectilinear) fisheye effect. With the standard lens, you will likely get a modest sized circle of fisheye effects, but not coverage to the edges. I mention it simply because you may have one and want to experiment with it, or may be looking for a new effect to try with panoramic photography. Or you may need a larger image circle from your fisheye lens than your 35mm or standard 645 to 6x7cm medium format camera can deliver.

The bad news is that these lens mount adapters are not as good as prime lenses in resolution, aberrations, and resistance to flare. Fortunately for us, the lower resolution effects are minimized thanks to the low degree of enlarging. When you try such an adapter on a 35mm SLR, and view the slide or enlarge to 5x7 inches or 8x10 inches, you may be disappointed. The same adapter on medium format is enlarged less to similar image sizes, and the results are more acceptable. Now enlarge even less thanks to the panoramic approach (e.g., no enlargement at all in the contact prints, 4.5X enlargements for affordable 10" x 24" prints).

While the ultrawide 0.42X adapter provides the widest angle of view, it is not a rectilinear wide angle. You will see some considerable wide angle or barrel distortion, especially in the edges, and maybe even some vignetting. The 0.6X adapter is less extreme, and a better behaved and less vignetting wide angle. You may also want to know that there are new designs of these adapters for video camera users who need wide angle effects. These adapters are smaller than the older heavier glass models, and may work as well with this application.

Please notice that these adapters fit in front of your regular camera lens, just as if they were a filter. If your lens doesn't have a filter mounting ring, you will have to rig one up. The easiest way is to find a slip-on filter ring to match your lens, such as was used by owners in the past (often series IV, V..). You may be able to find such an item at camera shows, from the Filter Connection or other speciality filter shop sellers, or from dealers online. I cheat. I find a standard filter that fits in front of the lens without vignetting. Then I bust out the glass, carefully, and epoxy or glue the glass-less metal filter ring in place. Now I can screw in any matching filter thread size filter or step-up adapter into this metal filter ring. Instant adapter for minimum fuss and low bucks. Now I add a step-up ring to Series VII so I can mount these 0.6X and 0.42X adapters. I can also mount any filter I need and have, if I have the right step-up ring or adapter.

Incidentally, you can put a mark or notch on a polarizer filter, and then hold it notch up and rotate the filter until you get the desired effect. Now you can mount the filter, again with the notch up, onto the camera while keeping it aligned as before. The camera should see the same degree and kind of polarizer filter effect as if it were on an SLR. Some filters have these marks and degree setting rings on their rims already, for rangefinder camera users. They also work well in the standard panoramic camera setup if you are using the normal or standard lens alone (46-54 degree coverage).

Be aware that with very wide angle and even wide angle shots, the polarizer will cause its own darkening variation effects, often quite noticeably so in the blue sky areas and other evenly lighted areas. So while polarizers can be used with the standard lens setup cameras, they are less useful with some wider angle lenses.

Bubble Levels and and Wire Framers

Another useful accessory is the wire frame sportsfinder. This device is just what it sounds like, an open wire frame that mounts on the top of the camera. You line up a bar with the center of the frame ( [+] ). Now simply bend the wire so you see what the camera sees. How can you tell what that is? Simply open the back of the camera, as if you were loading film. Trip the shutter on Time (T) or (bulb (B) with a locking cable release). Now you can put a piece of ground glass (from a glass/mirror store) where the film would be. Focus. What you see on the glass is what the film will see when shooting. Simply bend the wire frames to match when your eye is lined up properly.

A deluxe aiming device such as the Leica optical accessory viewfinder for the ultrawide angle setup (21mm) is unfortunately expensive - four or five times the cost of the rest of the camera! You will find some lower cost Russian viewfinders on the market. As a scuba diver, I have used a very larger Ikelite viewfinder for underwater cameras in housings with various masks marked for different lens angles. These finders cost around $100, but they are bright orange in color to be easier to find underwater and quite large (size of a lemon) to be easier to see in a diving mask.

You can also build one using tips on our fisheye pages and a door "peepsite" which is a very wide and cheap ($10-12 US) very wide angle fisheye finder. A bit of yellowish clear plastic from a plastic report cover (for college papers) can be cut out to mark the lens areas too. Yellow is easier to see, being higher contrast to the eye.

I have also made rectilinear ultrawide bright accessory finders out of the optics from discarded Texas Instruments DLP Digital Light Processor wide screen TV projectors (topcon optics). While these surplus optics just cover a DLP chip, they work nicely with an eyepiece as a bright large (1 1/2") finder. Some looking around may turn up similar optical options in surplus optics stores in your area too?

Bellows Repairs

The most common problem in older bellows mounted folder cameras is pinholes in the bellows. See our bellows repair pages for trips on using some black rubber adhesives to fix this common problem. See also our Bellows Repair and Replacement Pages for related repair tips and notes too.

Considering many of these lenses and leaf shutters are much older than I am, they are often in better shape. The Kodak ball bearing leaf shutters are simple and often surprisingly robust after decades of storage. The lenses are often simple, although a few of the Kodak #3A special models had Bausch and Lomb and other higher end optics.

Similarly, some models sport viewfinders, others add wedge prism finders, and a few such as the Auto Kodak Special #3A featured a coupled rangefinder while using #122 film delivering the familiar postcard sized images. In other words, it may be worthwhile to consult McKeown's Classic Camera Price Guide and other references in a library to learn more about postcard sized cameras and #122 rollfilm models.

If you plan on mainly using the camera with a wide angle adapter, the depth of field and changed optics will negate the benefits of a rangefinder (and some models of the Auto Kodak Special didn't have the coupled rangefinder either, so beware!). I have looked for cameras with rollfilm formats that are low cost and common enough to be easily found and converted, and nothing seems to beat the #122 rollfilm Kodak #3A series so far. But if you have or find any candidates for better conversion, please Email me with the model and details. Thanks!

Film

You may have some unusual need to shoot 220 rollfilm, or even 70mm film, to get a particular emulsion or use stock you have. Since the Postcard Panoramic Camera film channel is 3 1/4" wide, you can physically fit 220 rollfilm just as well as 120 film. However, you have a risk of scratches to the back of the film where the protective paper runs out over your images. Possibly a film paper thickness sheet placed on the film plate area will both protect and adjust for any film paper thickness issues. Similarly, you probably aren't going to be able to use the standard 70mm film cassettes for obvious reasons. But you may be able to use 70mm film stock in the camera by darkroom loading and unloading (or use a changing bag).

In short, while you could physically fit and use the 220 and 70mm rollfilms, it would seem to be easier to just use the same emulsions in 120 rollfilms. Still, lots of panoramic cameras can only use 120 rollfilm physically. So if there is some reason you need either 220 or 70mm film stocks, the potential to use them in these larger film channel cameras is there.

Nibbling Wider Formats

But if you could nibble just a half-inch from either side of the film channel, your 6x14cm Postcard Panoramic Camera would become a 6x17cm Postcard X-Panoramic Camera! So if you really, really need the wider standard format, or really, really can't stand wasting any film, this project might be worth looking into.

Postscript

The better "least resistance" approach is to look into a rotating panoramic camera. You need one regulated voltage DC motor to control the film advance speed, and a second regulated voltage DC motor to rotate the entire camera around. These rotary cameras use vertical slits 1 or 2 millimeters wide as a shutter (with the lens shutter to Time exposure during use). A rotary camera is actually rotated around the lens node rather than the center of the camera.

One piece of good news is that you don't need a particularly expensive or wide angle lens, except to get the desired vertical angle coverage (e.g., typically 28mm and up equivalent on 35mm SLR). You can use any medium format camera that you can wind film with. The older Kodak and other folders let you wind film without any stopping mechanism (except seeing the number come up in the red window at the back of the camera). So they might be ideal for such a conversion. A tripod, battery, and a few motors and parts from Radio Shack would be the bulk of your other costs - plus test film!

When thinking about candidates for conversion, keep in mind the benefits of that film shifting technique I have described above. This shifting ability is just as valuable in a rotating panoramic camera as it is in a fixed one. The film advance on these old cameras is very simple, and easily adapted (epoxied) to a regulated voltage DC "motor drive". The folder camera is also lightweight, making it easy to mount on a small motor on a tripod for 360 degree (or less) rotations. With the 0.6x or 0.5X lens mount adapters, you can even expand the vertical angle of coverage of the standard lens. This trick simulates putting a wider angle lens in place on the camera. In short, keep those low cost #3A (and #1A) cameras in mind when looking at medium format rotating camera projects. The potential advantage of film shifting is so great that it alone would justify switching to this camera over other models, just to get the great benefits of the film shifting effects.

Conclusion

The Nimslo 3D panoramic camera idea of Andrew Davidhazy (of RIT Photography Program..) shows how picking the right camera makes it easy to make a 72mm long panoramic camera with the lens coverage of your choice. As with this Postcard Panoramic Camera, the results are surprisingly handy, considering the price is well under one percent (1%) of the cost of a similar commercial panoramic camera (Fuji/Hasselblad X-pan at $2,000+).

I see lots of great cameras being machined and precisely ground and built up. But most of us don't have the facilities or skills to do that kind of work. The Postcard Panoramic Camera described here requires virtually no tools and only a 120 film adapter to turn it into a panoramic camera. With a few tricks, we can coax a surprisingly effective range of shifts out of the camera too, thanks to my film shifting technique described above.

Related Postings

good points re: shifting; my 6x14cm design uses "film shifting" instead of lens shifting, which is an approach I haven't seen formally used on any other panoramic camera designs - new to me, anyway ;-) ...

with film shifting, you can have a rigid camera body (or bellows too) and build the film channel say 25mm or so _larger_ than the actual film size. Now you put the film on an extension adapter so it moves horizontally at any desired point in that +/- 13mm shift range (fixed shift adapters or turn screw to desired shift point on variable adapter). Just be sure film is horizontal at the shifted point! ;-)

The film "floats" up or down in the actual film channel, which is equivalent to shifting the lens up or down a similar amount, or equiv. to cropping a larger film size at that shift offset. You can keep the camera horizontal on a level tripod, but setup a film shift of +12mm, thereby minimizing converging verticals etc. by moving the film down into the lower (or upper) section of the lens coverage. Again, same as shifting the lens, but easier and lots cheaper to do with a rigid camera body, if the lens has the coverage as you noted...

the "gotcha" is that you have to select a film shift when loading the film, based on anticipated shift needs (in buildings or monument subjects) or leave centered (for vertical shots or no shifts needed). Seems a good tradeoff, esp. if you shoot seconds of major shots and bracket ;-)

Closest comparable camera is one of the 6x12cm (Linhof) which has a permanent 8mm shift reportedly built into the camera, which can't be removed, making it an issue for vertical shots and a middling shift amount for times when you really need/want the full 12mm or more shift many panoramics offer. Film shifting provides the same built-in shift effect, but it is variable, and the lens is left centered on the camera. Naturally, you could shift the lens in a film shift camera (say 12mm) so when the film is at the top of the channel, no shift is selected (e.g., for verticals..); but shift up to 25mm or the full width of the film channel provided, as noted, the lens has enough coverage for such a trick! ;-)

the film adapters/spacers are much simpler for a homebrew design than a shift lens mount mechanism, more robust, and very cheap with the right lens and starting camera body, and a rigid body rigid lens design is easy!

I'd be interested in any other camera designs which used this "film shifting" approach, since it seems both obvious and useful for many needs, but I have yet to see such an approach in any current panoramic cameras in the materials/books I have available...

regards bobm

* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite*

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 IAPPPresident@aol.com wrote:

> One of the nice things about the V-Pan is WYSIWYG:  What you see is what you
> get.  There is nothing sacred about 6 x 17.  If you look on the viewing
> screen you may discover that the image circle is smaller than what you hoped
> for, but the image works and you have only to do a little cropping.  Chet
> Hanchett himself suggested putting some little black boards on the sides of
> the film magazine to crop to 6 x 12, and there's nothing sacred about 6 x 12,
> either.  And don't forget, the image circle thrown by the lens may just cover
> the 6 x 17 format, but sometimes you want to shift the lens, and then the
> bigger the image circle, the more room you have for shifts.  Chet recommends
> an image circle of 200 mm for full coverage of the V-Pan frame.  There have
> been times when shift was more important to me than frame size - so I just
> shifted the lens, and later cropped the edges straight.
>
> Liz Hymans
>
> In a message dated 4/3/00 4:27:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> evphoto@insync.net writes:
>
>   As soon as I find a mm ruler I'll send you specs for my
>  V-Pan mark III. Do you want the film gate diagonal as well. You of
>  course are aware that published specs for image circles are often
>  conservative. And are talking about the older 90 mm f/6.8 Angulon or the
>  current or original version of 90 mm f/6.8 Super Angulon? Three
>  different lenses with different specs. 

Related Postings

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: mr_wratten@hotmail.com (Mr. Wratten)
Subject: Re: Inexpensive, homebrew 6x17 panoramic?

RebeccsNOSPAM@hotmail.com (Becca Stephens) wrote:

>Is it possible to inexpensively use an old Speed Graphic with a rollfilm
>back to make an inexpensive panoramic camera? Or would a 6x18 rollfilm
>back be too expensive or impossible to find?
>
>Or should I just consider buying one of those cheap Russian Horizon pan
>cameras?

Judging from the other posts, you want to shoot rollfilm in a larger format than is normally available (6x9). You discuss using a Speed Graphic, which can only shoot up to 4x5 in, or 10x12 cm. You say you don't want to use sheet film. So, here are my suggestions:

1. Find a good 112 roll film Kodak from a long time ago (5x7 film format) and modify the camera to take 120 roll film (not too hard, but cameras are very old).

2. Find a good 122 roll film camera (3.25 x 5.25 film format). A Kodak 3A, for example. Modify to take 120 roll film. Again, cameras are very old. May have problems such as leaky bellows, etc.

3. Find a good Polaroid roll-film camera (model 150, 800, 900), modify to take 120 roll film. A slightly more involved modification, but only slightly.

Film format is about 3.25x4.25. You also get rangefinder focus with this modification. Cameras are very cheap ($10 or so) and high quality, but exposure system is rudimentary. You could also find a Pathfinder (110, 110A, or 110B) that has not been modified into a pack film camera (they have "normal" lens/shutters as opposed to the Polaroid EV exposure system). Buy a 110 as opposed to am A or B model, they are harder to modify into pack-film cameras and are cheaper for that reason (usually less that $100).

4. Find a good 116 or 616 roll film camera, modify to take 120 film. Film format is 2.5x4.25. The easiest modification, discussed here:

[Ed. note: http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfilms.html is update of old link at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronfilms.html]

Good luck,

Jim

From Koni Omega Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000
From: "Martin F. Melhus" melhus@fdrc.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm image circle - coverage for movements

johnstafford wrote:

> I have similar reservations regarding film flatness. Some people are
> experimenting with the US Navy surplus "Torpedo Camera" back, but it seems a
> hassle to adapt it to 220/120 spools.

Another approach that I've heard for cheap MF panaroma is to get one of the really old folders that takes some big goofy film size that is no longer made, make adaptors to hold 120 film, and put edge holders or some sort of mask on.

The problems with this approach are:

1) Film flatness - manageable if you have the resources.

2) Hard to find cameras.

3) Old lenses are usually not so great, typically 2-3 element uncoated.

But they are cheap.

Regards,
--
Martin F. Melhus
melhus@fdrc.iit.edu

From Koni Omega Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: Lyndon Fletcher Fletch2@ibm.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm image circle - coverage for movements

>Another approach that I've heard for cheap MF panaroma is to get one
>of the really old folders that takes some big goofy film size that is
>no longer made, make adaptors to hold 120 film, and put edge holders
>or some sort of mask on.

I have heard that the Kodak 3A camera is the one you should go for, a very very large negative area designed in the days when you needed big contact prints,

>The problems with this approach are:
>1) Film flatness - manageable if you have the resources.
>2) Hard to find cameras.

They are incredibly easy to find. I have had a friend in the US buy 6 for me on Ebay most I ever paid was $30 with between $12 and $20 being typical.

He is saving me the bodies of 2 of them, I actually bought the camera for their lenses.

>3) Old lenses are usually not so great, typically 2-3 element
>   uncoated.

Most of them are Cellor type 4 element airspaced lenses of around 130-170mm and f7.7, very nice LF lenses if a little slow. They are the best LF lenses you can get for under $50. FYI the Kodak 203mm Anastigmat used on the Speed Graphic is one of these types of lenses. With coatings it became the famous 203mm Ektar. Nothing wrong with a lot of the lenses.

The later cameras with the faster f6.3 lenses are mainly triplets except the "Specials" which are B&L; made Tessars.

Anyway, that is accademic, you would HAVE to change the lens for something wider anyway to make a better Pano picture. I have been told that the 90mm Angulon (not SA) has the right coverage and price for this kinds project. These cameras have a flat bead and unit focussing meaning that any lens can be used if infinity stops and focus scales are changed.

Lyndon

...

From KO Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: Clive Warren Clive.Warren@baesystems.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm image circle - coverage for movements

....

Hello Lyndon,

Have you tried the Kodak 3A Cellor lenses yet? Would be interesting to know if they were colour corrected......... it seems unlikely.

The 90mm Angulon struggles to cover 4x5 - you need to stop it down to f32 (hence the name of one of my web sites - www.f32.net). Diffraction problems then start to degrade the image resolution and contrast. At f32 you can get a half decent trannie. So, it may be OK for landscapes with slow film but it's pushing the boundaries and doesn't give a whole lot of flexibility.

Have been trying to contact you for a while now to say thanks but mail has always bounced back - please EMail me off list at CoCam.

All the best,

Clive http://www.cocam.co.uk

From KO Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: "Martin F. Melhus" melhus@fdrc.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [KOML] 58mm image circle - coverage for movements

Clive Warren wrote:

> At 11:47 pm -0500 5/7/00, Martin F. Melhus wrote:
>
> >Another approach that I've heard for cheap MF panaroma is to get one
> >of the really old folders that takes some big goofy film size that is
> >no longer made, make adaptors to hold 120 film, and put edge holders
> >or some sort of mask on.
>
> You can find a good selection of 6x9 folders this way, 6x12 is also a
> possibility.

Actually, the ones that I'm talking about predate 120 film by a lot. I have three 6x9's and they are very nice (esp. my Voigtlander Bessa I with a 105mm 4 element coated Scopar lens.) But they aren't really panoramic, in that they have the same aspect ratio as a standard 35mm camera (3:2).

I'm talking about the real antiques, from 1910-1939 or so. These cameras take film that is perhaps 4 inches wide and take shots that are between 8 and 12 inches long. You use most of the length and just as much width as a roll of 12 film will allow. This allows you to mostly use the center of the lens, where distortions are at a minimum.

The conversion to 120 film is not so difficult from the roller end. Just use wood and glue to build an adaptor that will hold a MF roll securely. Getting the film to stay flat is the real trick. If I knew how to do that well, I'd own several of these cameras. If I ever figure it out, I'll post the results somewhere appropriate.

Sorry about the off topic posts.

Regards,
--
Martin F. Melhus
melhus@fdrc.iit.edu

Date: 14 Nov 2000
From: Martin Jangowski m.jangowski@phoenix-ag.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Angulon 90 f/6.8 - what hole?

Victor Bazarov vAbazarov@danai.com wrote:

> About to get the Schneider-Kreuznach 90 mm f/6.8 in Synchro-
> Compur.  Could anyone please tell me what diameter of the
> hole in the lensboard is needed?

The Angulon 6.8/90 should be in a #0 shutter, you'll need a 34.6mm hole in your lensboard.

Martin

From Bronica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000
From: Kelvin Lee kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Metered prism finders for S2A?

http://www.craigcamera.com/access.htm

I think you may have this listed already, but this guy sells replacement bellows for old KOdak cameras like the 1a and the 3 from US$10. Great for restoration.

[Ed. note: some shift can be handy; see Medium Format Shift Lenses Pages for more info...]
From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000
From: Andy Buck buckwiet@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Noblex cameras

I've used the 150 with shift & focus and agree about the shift: it's so little it's hardly worth it (and why I had a 5" 360 w/1" shift made). also, 150 vs 175 is odd because the 175 actually has a narrower angle of view: 138 degrees horizontally vs 146 degrees with the 150, and obviously less vertically, since it's a 75mm lens vs 50mm with the 150. btw, the names are deceiving, too, since the negative on the 150 is 50mmx120mm and the 175 is 50mmx170mm.

only other comment is that the lens (on the 150) is one of the sharpest I've ever seen and, I've heard, the sharpest currently availble on any camera and possibly made by zeiss.

a

From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000
From: Ellis Vener evphoto@insync.net
Subject: Re: Noblex cameras

>I've used the 150 with shift & focus and agree about
>the shift: it's so little it's hardly worth it

While this may be true with landscape work where everything is pretty much at infinity, for interior work the shift is very handy and very much worthwhile having, likewise for landscape and cityscape compositions with a dramatic near/far composition.

Ellis Vener

[Ed. note: another idea using 70mm stock film...]
From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
From: Lyndon Fletcher uablyfl@uab.ericsson.se
Subject: Re: starting with a Kodak pocket

>Lyndon
>
>It is a number 1A pocket,
>bellows, folding bed type,  on the back it says "use film no 1116"
>
>The active part of the negative is about 4.25 inches 11cm long and  2.5inches
>6.5cm wide.

Then this camera is not for 120 film but for 116. This is a (VERY) old and discontinued film size, Kodak switched from this to 616 in the early 1930's and 616 itself was discontinued I think in the early 1980's. Part of the reason I am always looking for unperforated 70mm film stock is so that I can use some of the 616 cameras I own.

The first step is to adapt the camera to use 120 film. You will need to reduce the size of the gate a little and put spacers bellow the 120 film spools. Marty Magid at MMagid3005@aol.com used to sell little adapter kits for doing this if you don't want to do the job yourself.

Three things to remember. First, there are no markings on the 120 paper for an 11 inch wide image. This means that you will have to work out a winding system. Using the 6x6 markings and winding on 2 frames for every shot should work.. Remember also that the start point for the film will be in a different position relative to the red window so it would probably be wise to waste a roll of film working out the start position of the film. Second, remember when you work out your gate adaptations to position the film so that you can still see the 6x6 film markings though the red window. If this isn't possible you will need to move the window. Finally, modern films are far more sensitive to red light than their predecessors. Cover the red window with black electrician's tape when not winding film.

>can I get a widerangle lens for this camera ? i

I have never done it with this type of camera and so a lot of this information is based on reported conversions of 3a cameras (these have bigger negative areas and this has effected the choice of lens.)

You will need a 90mm WA Optar, WA Raptar or a 90mm Angulon. A 65mm Super Angulon way cover 6x11 (advice anyone?) and would give a much more pronounced wide angle effect. Replacing the lens should be relatively trivial. Most shutters are mounted from the back of the camera with a locking ring. To remove it you will need to open the back of the camera and unscrew the ring that holds the lens in place with an optical spanner. Depending on the width of the throat on the new shutter you may need to extend the hole diameter or use a small reducer board to fit the new lens to the front standard. Make sure the resulting joints are light tight.

To focus on closer objects I assume that you turn a knob on the bed of the camera that extends the tracks and moves the standard forwards? Some cheaper Kodak cameras of this period have 3 sets of stops one for infinity, one for groups and one for close-up rather than allowing continuous focus. If your camera is of this type and you are satisfied with this limitation then follow this procedure for each focussing distance. For the moment I will assume that the camera has a focussing knob and one set of stops.

When you pull the front standard down it's track it locks in place at a certain position. The distance from the lens to the filmplane at this point will be the focal length of the lens. With the lens in this position objects at infinity will be in sharp focus.

Wider lenses will have a shorter focal length than the one on your camera. To be able to focus the new lens at infinity you will have to move the position of the infinity stops backwards until the new film to standard distance is the same as the focal length of the new lens. First erect the camera as it would have been with the old lens. There is usually a small vernier style focusing scale next to the track on the camera. Set this to infinity.

Next open the back of the camera and stick some frosted tape tightly across the film gate. Mount the camera on a tripod looking though a window at a distant object. Cover with a darkcloth or thick coat and open the shutter using the T setting or a locking cable release and the shutter set on "B". Open the lens to it's widest apperture.

Keeping the position of the focussing scale at infinity release the lens from the infinity stop and move it backwards, carefully checking the focus of the distant object on the frosted tape with a loupe. When the distant object is sharply in focus, mark the new standard position on the movable track with a fine point technical pen.

You will now need to devise a method of locking the standard to the movable rail at this new position. Depending on how it is constructed it may be possible to move the existing infinity lock to this position or just file an extra grove in a guide rail. In any case for a focusing camera you need a method of locking the standard to the movable rails at this point while still allowing the rails to move easily.

Now measure out a number of known distances and place target objects at these positions. Focus until the objects are sharp and record the distances on the movable half of the camera's focusing scale. Using this as a guide a new scale can be made and glued in place to replace the scale from the old lens. If you have the 3 focal distance style camera then just adjust the 2 other sets of focus stops for usable distances.

>is it worth the effort?

If the camera is in good condition, if your adaptations hold the film flat and you set the infinity focus correctly then the camera should produce results as good as any other camera with the same lens. The resulting camera should be fairly portable and give a wide field of view.

Lyndon

From: David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: shifting film trick, eccentric lens mounts Re: postcard panoramic
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001

Robert Monaghan
<rmonagha@smu.edu> writes
>
>
>another fun discovery is eccentric lens board mounts, with the lenses
>purposely mounted waaay off-center, so you have the desired shift (switch
>lens around in square 3x3 or 4x4" holder to vary vertical or horiz etc.)
>The linhof 612 already does this 10mm or so shift, IIRC, which screws it
>up for unshifted or foreground dominant work, but this isn't a new trick;
>however, it is the obvious way to get a low cost shift lens for the price
>of a spare lens board and mounting tool ;-)
>
Now this is interesting; the problem is that many wides require sunken
lens boards, which rather precludes the use of eccentric mounting. With
a drop-bed camera the upward offset would not matter as you could drop
the board below horizontal to take non-shifted pictures.

Hmm, this could be the solution to my limited rise problem with a 75 mm
on Linhof Technika IV. Where can I fine an offset sunken Linhof lens board? Could be quite a hairy machining job.

But this is rather the wrong NG, I guess.
--
David Littlewood 

From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: postcard panoramic - features shift option, costs $50, 6x12/6x14cm
Date: 27 Aug 2001 

Robert Monaghan, rmonagha@smu.edu writes:

> By swapping out adapters (which can be as simple as 
> some nickels glued together), you can position the
> film up or down in the rollfilm channel, effectively
> creating a shift lens camera for cityscapes.

    If you want a cheap shifting back with excellent mechanical
integrity you might want to look for older oscilloscope cameras. 
These often had a polaroid back which could be shifted +/- 2.5
inches which allowed you to record several traces on the same
piece of film.


Struan



rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
[1] Re: Wide-angle folder
Date: Fri May 17 2002

>Hi John - sounds like an interesting and fun project - but sadly, there
>just don't seem to be a lot of modest cost wide angle lenses to match
>the costs of most folders to make this a really attractive project to me?

Maybe a tiny 65mm Angulon would make a good folder wide angle.  Covers 6x9 with
no problems.

Chuck



From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Wide-angle folder
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002

If you don't mind venturing into hand-builts, it's feasible to mate a 47mm
Super Angulon to an early folder such as the Ikomat 6x6 or 6x9. I've seen it
done. Maybe I'll do one this winter.



From: "Lyle Gordon" lyle@rogers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 616 kodak film in old junior six-16...
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002

I did this with the senior version of your camera I place a motherboard
standoff (computer building screw-like thingy) on top and below the spool of
620 (120 didnt fit) film with a spool of 616 for the take-up. With this set
up I was able to take 5 pictures on a roll. Here is a link to one of the
photos:

http://members.rogers.com/lgordon/house.jpg (my house)

it produced interesting 6x12 panoramic negatives.

I would be willing to send you the 616 take-up spool and modified
motherboard standoffs if you are will to pay postage from canada.

My e-mail is lyle@rogers.com

-Lyle Gordon
   
"Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com wrote 
> Merry Xmas!
>
> Hi all, somebody gave me as a present an old folding camera. It's a Kodak
> Junior Six-16 series III, with a kodak anastigmat lens 126mm...
>
> I made a search on the net and i found out the following info:
> it was made 1938-39
> its negative size is 6.5x11cm (i think 2.5x4.5")
> film format is Kodak 616
>
> since i'd like to see this camera working (shutter seems to work pretty good
> and lens is acceptably clean for its age), i made i search for that type of
> film and i found out production has been discontinued since about 50
> years... :)   
> but since the film which is supposed to go into it is just 1/2 cm taller
> than a typical 120 film (6cm tall), i was thinking that using a simple
> adapter i would be able to use the camera. do u know anybody who already
> tried to adapt 120 film rolls to 616 film cameras??? if yes, is there a link
> on the net???
>
> or should i just try to trade it for a rolleicord or similar in working
> conditions? i like old cameras, but i'd like to have something which works
> as well...
>
> thanks everybody,
> Andrea


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: 616 kodak film in old junior six-16...
Date: 25 Dec 2002

"Andrea" andrea_7500@yahoo.com wrote 
> but since the film which is supposed to go into it is just 1/2 cm taller
> than a typical 120 film (6cm tall), i was thinking that using a simple
> adapter i would be able to use the camera. do u know anybody who already
> tried to adapt 120 film rolls to 616 film cameras??? if yes, is there a link
> on the net???

Maybe you can make an adaptor such that the spools of 120 film can be
used. BUT - the problem is the film screen. The film has to ride on
two rails on top and on the bottom of the big rectangular opening,
otherwise the film will not lie flat and there will be unsharp parts
of the picture taken. Since 120 film is somewhat smaller than 616 film
it will not ride on these rails, even if the spools fit. For a
mechanic it would be possible to modify the film screen such that 120
film will fit it, too.

There are some guys who modified either 620 cameras to accept 120  
film, or the 120 film spools to fit into a 620 format camera. But in
this case both 620 and 120 film have the same width so there are no
problems with the film screen.

My advice is to keep this one as a nice shelf item. If you want to go
into photography with medium format, you'd better try a more recent
folder, like the Zeiss Nettar or Ikonta. Photography with TLRs like
the Rolleiflex is a different thing, you will have to get used to it.

Merry Christmas from Germany

Winfried 


From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: 616 kodak film in old junior six-16...

>There was also 116 sized just like the 620/120 sizes, maybe someone in
>Europe still makes either??

Jus so everyone knows.  Size 616/116 is really 70mm.  You can reload 616/116
rolls if you still have the paper backing with 70mm non-perfed film sometimes
sold on Ebay for about $30 for 100ft roll.

Larry


From: "Lyle Gordon" lyle@rogers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 616 kodak film in old junior six-16...
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002


The film screen is easily modifiable with some thin sheet metal at least on
my brownie

but even so I would not suggest this camera for continual use, more of a
nostagic item for use once or twice and then to look at on the shelf. I
merely modified it so I could try it out.    



From: "Lyle Gordon" lyle@rogers.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: 616 kodak film in old junior six-16...
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002

Just incase you didnt completely understand my modification here is a scan
of it in my camera:

http://members.rogers.com/lgordon/616.jpg

-Lyle Gordon

P.S. I hope you manage to take some shots with your camera, I'd like to see
how they turn out. 


From: "Harry Smart" papageiscot@hotmail.com
To: Cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 
Subject: [Cameramakers] Roll film holders

Hi,

Does anyone know where I can find plans / information for building a RFH to
use 120 in a panoramic format?

I've been using old Kodak 3A cameras (postcard format) with 120 film to get
a panoramic (6 x 14) negative. After a few months of this, using a very neat
little pair of adapters to hold the film spool, and with some take-up spools
made of old 120 spools, I've reached the conclusion that it's time to build
my own roll-film back. I plan to adapt one of the Kodaks first, then build
something for a 5x7 back (I plan to buy a Plaubel or something similar).

The main problem with the existing arrangement is just how slow and fiddly
it is, and how easy it is, after composing with a matt screen, to bump the
camera and shift things while loading the film, even on a heavy tripod.
Also, once a film is loaded, you have to take your four shots without any
chance to recompose. Frame spacing is actually not a great problem once
you've worked out how many turns. The 3As vary greatly in construction and
quality, but with some you even get decent film flatness courtesy of the
winding mechanism having just enough tension; it would be great, of course,
to fix this properly.

If anyone wants to see the kind of stuff I've been doing, there are some
figure images on my website at www.harrysmart.net ... a link off the home
page goes straight to the panoramics.

Cheers,
Harry



From: Willem-Jan Markerink [w.j.markerink@a1.nl] 
Sent: Fri 6/13/2003
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au 
Subject: RE: Your Opinion : Noblex 150 vs Noblex 175 vs Fuji 617


M. Denis Hill wrote:

> The big difference (other than the big difference in film size)
> between the focal length of the lens relative to the film format. The
> 135 has a 29mm lens, which is wide on 35mm film. The 175 has a 75mm
> lens, which is "normal" for 2-1/4.

And the 150 has a 50mm lens on 50mm image height, *wider* than the
29mm (on 24mm image height).
Also interesting: there soon will be a 6x24cm swing lens camera with
105mm lens....this makes a neat linear range of vertical views, with
almost identical horizontal view....you just get more tele each time,
not bad for far-distant mountain scenery.

> Which is best depends on what you
> use it for. For large groups of people, I'd choose the 175. For
> interiors and scenes with plenty of near-to-far subject matter, the
> 135 or 150.
>
> Or you might consider the Widepan. It has a 50mm lens and consumes
> wither 120 or 135 film.
>
> Yes, 2:1 aspect ratio images such as the Noblex 150 are easier for art
> designers to use, but I like 2.5:1 for gallery prints.

But the Noblex 150 *has* an aspect ratio of 1:2.4....50x120mm....:))
(the 175 is 50x170mm, 1:3.4)

Btw fixed lens on 6x17cm: in a discussion many moons ago, it was
concluded that a 6x12cm camera with the Rodenstock 35mm, cropping
that image to 1:3 was actually sharper than any equivalent (wide!)
lens that covered 6x17....
A good thing to remember if maximum angle is your goal (for standard
and tele lenses this argument doesn't apply of course), before
hauling a much larger camera around....
-- 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 May 2003 
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film

>The bigger formats are the problem.

Actually, not as much of a problem as you might think. Size 616 and 116 is
really 70mm. This film is sold fresh for as little as $35 for a 100 ft roll on
ebay.

All you need is several old rolls of 616 or 116 and respool. BTW 116 to 616 is
the same difference as 120 to 620.

Larry


From: wfpnews@shoestringprojects.com (Bill Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: 120 film, 616 camera
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 

I just acquired a beautiful Kodak Senior Six-16. I intend to try some
120 film in it, having determined that the supply and takeup
compartments will accomodate modern 120 spools.

I know of the "two nickels" trick for the supply spool. Seems like it
should be adequate. However, I don't want to use my only 616 takeup
spool, both because they are scarce and because of light leakage.

Looking closely at (a) my 616 spool, (b) a couple of 620 spools I have
and (c) a modern plastic 120 spool, it occurred to me that it should
be pretty easy to make a pair of takeup adapters by mangling either
(a) (undesirable) or (b) (also not very desirable, but at least I have
two of them). Replacing either (a) or (b) would cost several dollars
apiece on eBay, plus shipping, but I guess one pays for progress.

I reckon that, by cutting just the right amount of 6xx spool from each
end and flattening much of the core in a vise, I should be able to
make a pair of adapters that will extend the 120 spool exactly enough
to work.

I would start by cutting a 620 spool in half and then progressively
shortening each stub until the length is right to fit neatly in the
slotted holes of the 120 spool. At some point along the way I'd
flatten the projecting bit of core to mate with the slot.

It remains to be seen how well I can make this fit, but it all looks
plausible. Then it's just a matter of stuffing the adaptors on the
ends of the takeup spool, dropping a couple of nickels in with the
supply spool -- and figuring out how to advance the film properly
(I've heard that using the even numbers (2-10) will get you five shots
on a roll. Is the red window located correctly for that, in fact?)

Since the film gate on the 616 is as wide as the 120 film, you are
likely to suck the film into the bellows area every time you open the
camera. So I'd either keep it open, or more likely advance the film
after opening and immediately before shooting (contrary to standard
practice).

If I get decent results, I may want to narrow the film gate somehow.
I've yet to come across a good, simple solution to that.

So -- has anyone here tried to make adaptors this way? Did they work?
And - what about the film gate?

TIA,
Bill Phillips





From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: 120 film, 616 camera

>I just acquired a beautiful Kodak Senior Six-16. I intend to try some
>120 film in it, having determined that the supply and takeup
>compartments will accomodate modern 120 spools.

Remember 616 as well as 116 is really 70mm. You can get 100 ft rolls of fresh
dated unperfed 70mm film on ebay for about $40 a 100 ft roll.

All you need to do is find several old 616 rolls of film with paper. I have
found at least 10 of them in the last year at antique shops.

Larry



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 May 2003 
Subject: Re: Impossible-to-find roll film

>I'm not sure it's quite that simple. One would also need a paper backing with
>numbering since most old cameras of these sizes rely on the red window for
>frame counting.

When I say "Find several old rolls" I mean rolls with paper and all. I have
found these rolls in old cameras. Even found "never used" rolls at an antique
shop. Needless to say, the film inside is trash but the paper and spool can be
reused.

Nothing like taking a 616 or 116 camera made between 1906 to 1935 and run a
roll of fresh Kodak NPS 160 through it.

The resulting negatives are very close to 4x5 being a little over about 3x5. 

Larry



From: MMagid3005@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: 616 to 120

Bill Phillips - Steve Suddharth makes spool extensions that are attached to
120 rolls for both 116 and 616. He uses mylar strips from hobby shops to aid
flatness. Phone 305-754-7127, address P.O. Box 531054, Miami, FL 33153.

Marty Magid


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 
From: "Max" maxhert@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Me too!!! RE: Homebuilt X-Pan type camera...

I've done some great 6x12cm images using an old Kodak bellows camera
that was originally for 130 film. The 130 frame was 9x12cm, and I
made a mask to use it with 120 film. The Anastigmat lenses are very
good (very sharp!). The one I have is a 140mm, which isnYt exactly a
wide lens, but it can shoot extremely pleasing panoramics. It's very
much an upscale in size/downscale in price of the 35mm panoramic
thing (these cameras go for 40$ in good shape). One of the great
things is you don't even have to modify the Autographic Kodak
cameras, because those come with a window to write on the film
backing, and can be used to count the frames (obviously, to get the
12cm images you use the odd numbers for 6x6, quite easy).
The slides can be scanned in a drum scanner. And you can bet if the
camera is properly aligned a 35mm version won't come nowhere near in
picture quality.

...


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 
From: "Christopher" canon7dude@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Homebuilt X-Pan type camera...

I am still hopeing for lens mount ideas from the group?

"I've done some great 6x12cm images using an old Kodak bellows camera
that was originally for 130 film. The 130 frame was 9x12cm, and I
made a mask to use it with 120 film. The Anastigmat lenses are very
good (very sharp!). The one I have is a 140mm, which isnYt exactly a
wide lens, but it can shoot extremely pleasing panoramics. It's very
much an upscale in size/downscale in price of the 35mm panoramic
thing (these cameras go for 40$ in good shape)."

I have decided on 35mm format because of the ease and cost of
development options. I am choosing the nishika purely for economy and
size. I could eaily convert a 120/220 koni-omega back to take 35mm
film but I rarely lugg the koni-omega around. I am going for
portability here.


"you don't even have to modify the Autographic Kodak
cameras, because those come with a window to write on the film
backing, and can be used to count the frames (obviously, to get the
12cm images you use the odd numbers for 6x6, quite easy).
The slides can be scanned in a drum scanner. And you can bet if the
camera is properly aligned a 35mm version won't come nowhere near in
picture quality."

Perhaps not but to get a wide angle lens to cover the 6x17 equilivant
is way out of my price range. I have considered poloroids and kodak
folders but I really want the wide angle for now. I think eventually
I will convert a paloroid roll film camera to 6x17 panoramic.

But for now, thanks for the suggestions, and please keep them comeing.

Thanks..
-Chris


> It looks like I will be needing to mount a lens soon to complete
> my homebuilt x-pan. I an using an old 3-d nishika 35.. film body and
> plann to mount a medium format lens to get the 73mm film chanel
> coverage. As far as wide medium format lenses The 58 5.6 for the Koni-
> Omega is what I am planning to use.
> If anyone has any recomendations as to how I could build a
> focusing lens mount for this camera please let me know. I have
> several ideas for building a helical or bellows type focusing
> mechanism but would like to hear others suggestions first before I
> decide on a course of action.
> Also I need advice on creating a lensboard. apparently nobody
> makes one for the koni-omega mount.
>
> Thanks
> 
> -Chris


From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: "620" Film Questions
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 

Vince holvbphoto@cs.comgoodguy wrote:
> I guess Kodak sees things otherwise, the company has marketing experts who know
> which films sell.
>
> Certain films have stayed around many years after they stopped making cameras
> for them. Case in point a friend give me a 616 camera, back around 1975. The
> film was still being made, but only in KODACOLOR (remember that name?) as were
> other old sizes.

J&C; announced 116 film-)) And they show some 620 film.

Nick



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 
From: "Richard Glynn" r.glynn@onyxnet.co.uk
Subject: kodak folding pocket speeds

Following on from recent requests relating to likely shutter speeds for old
cameras, I'd like to pick your collective brains with regard to an old Kodak
Folding Pocket Camera 3a I have been experimenting with. THe camera takes a
116 film, which is obviously no longer available. I have been running 120 film
through it after building two bobbin spacers from cut down plastic 120 spools
thus enabling me to run the film centrally across the gate. THis produces a
panoramic negative about 14cms long. Not an original idea, but fun. I have
generally shot outside in bright sun (as bright as it can be in the UK this
time of year) but would like to try to develop a bit more control over the
results. So far I've only shot a couple of rolls and mainly to find if I had
any light leaks in the bellows, (no), and if my spacers worked.

Does anybody have any idea what sort of shutter speeds these things would have
operated at? I've guessed at 1/50th but haven't really got any idea, (and
haven't got around to building one of the marvellous shutter testers that have
been referenced here).

THe lens is a Bausch & Love Rapid Rectilinear and the shutter has a plate
saying 'F.P.K. Automatic Eatman Kodak Co.'

Thanks for your time,
Richard,
North East England



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 
From: Leigh Solland solland@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: Ariesflex TLR and Kodak 1A Autographic Jr

dsherm112@yahoo.com wrote:

> I just bought both of these cameras at an auction. I need manuals for
> both and any other information that's available. The Ariesflex may be
> the "Z" model but I'm not sure. I found a manual for the Kodak 1 Jr,
> but there are obvious differences in the cameras.
>
> The Kodak uses 116 film. Is it possible to use 120 in it. If so
> please explain. I am clueless.

Hi Sherm,

I have posted the manual for the Kodak 1 and 1A Autographic Jr. on this group's file
area.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/camera-fix/files/Kodak_1_and_1A_Autographic_Jr/

If anyone can suggest or offer a better place for it, I am all ears.

Good luck,
Leigh


End of Page