Re: Correction !: ULF lens wanted-cirkuts

Cirkut cameras are a lot of fun to use but are also the most
challenging cameras I've ever used too. I started out with a 8"
camera, shooting negs up to 6 feet long. and thought that was large and
hard to handle. I then bought a 10" camera which I've shot up to 8 plus
foot negs. That made the 8" by 6' negs seem small. After a while I
ended up with a 16" camera that could shoot negs up to 18' long, though
I'm only set up to do up to 10'. I made my own trays, print
frames,etc. A lot of work and fun. I like woodworking and do a (very)
little metal working as well. I've found the view that a cirkut camera
gives is unique , allowing one to choose the horizontal cropping, as
the cirkut allows view over 360 degrees, depending on film length
available. My 16" camera has a 15-24-36 t-r convertible, and being in
the midwest, I tend to use the 36" element the most. I had the 36"
element measured and found the actual focal length to be about 33", but
that's as long as the gear head allows, and only above a 60 foot focus
point.
I've done mostly van dyke prints with the larger negs, and have started
doing cyanotypes and then tea toning them. it a lot of fun. I'll try
to update my web site with cirkut stuff at some point soon, but there
are a few examples up right now.
http://www.jamieyoungphoto.com/cirkutmain.html
Jamie Young
On Feb 15, 2005, at 9:20 PM, Sandy King wrote:

> Huuuummm,
>
> Thirty inches is about 735 mm, right? So you were not off base at all.
>
> Nothing at all unusual about a lens that long. I recently sold one
> that was 1100mm, or about forty-two inches. But I guess only the real
> "ULF Honchos" would understand that a forty-two inch lens is really no
> big deal.
>
> Hope he finds what he is looking for. I would love to work with a big
> Cirkut camera. Folks did some wonderful work with those cameras back
> in the early part of the last century.
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Neighbor called tonight, delighted with the dossier I'd given him,
>> said he'd talked to several of the references who were extremely
>> helpful -- and that he'd gotten a lot of helpful info. However, he
>> was embarrassed to say he'd been "so excited" when he talked to me
>> originally that he'd cited the wrong number of inches.... Meaning of
>> course that the folks who'd commented on the "wide angle" were (as
>> usual) right ! He says it's actually 30 inches (THIRTY? Can a lens
>> be 30 inches long that isn't on Mount Palomar?), though the six to
>> eight hundred milimeter figure was correst.
>>
>> Actually, he's usually extremely excited when he's working,
>> especially when approaching what he calls "a new persona"--- I expect
>> he'll find the necessary sooner or later, and note the correction
>> here for what it's worth. (I also hope 30 inches isn't going to
>> break a window or knock down a street lamp. Ye gods !)
>>
>> Judy
>
Received on Wed Feb 16 08:33:30 2005