A few doubts about a Kodak 2D 8x10

[cyberjunkie]

Hi all!
Having a great esteem for Jim Galli (i have already browsed most of his personal site, with all the experiments with vintage soft focus lenses), and knowing that he does most of his work with an old Eastman Kodak 2D 8x10, i sent him a PM, asking for a few advices about my freshly purchased camera.
I am reposting the great part of my PM, asking for suggestions from other forum members, with some experience with that camera.


I just won a Kodak 2D outfit on Ebay, for $330 plus shipment (that would account for about 40% of the total expense!).
Fortunately the camera comes equipped with a american 12" f/6.8 Dagor, on Compound, and comes complete with the extension rail, the tripod block, a Packard shutter fitted beside the lensboard, and one 8x10 film holder, plus a case and a few other things.
The price is not so bad, from what i understand, but the camera is quite overused, at least from what i get from the pictures. Fortunately all the hardware seems to be still there, and the bellows look in not-so-bad shape, albeit repaired in a few places with some tape.
I plan to disassemble the camera, have the wood parts cleaned and polished (and repaired, if needed), but i am not sure about the best way to repair the bellows, replacing the black tape (on red bellows!) with something a little more durable and more aestetically pleasing.
If you want to take a look at the camera, just do a quick search on Ebay for completed auctions, and you'ill find plenty of pictures of a Kodak 2D that just sold for $330, that's my new camera :p .
It looks more badly cared and dusted, than totally ruined.
About the Packard shutter, it's the model with two pistons, with two hoses that come out from the bottom of the front standard. The hoses were cut and must be replaced as soon as possible. I hope i will be able to find two of those metal screw-on fittings, made to fit the hose on both sides of a standard/lensboard. That would be a cleaner solution than sealing the two hoses with some black silicon.
I don't remember what's the function of the second cylinder, and if the Packard shutters made that way have the instant pin, or not.
I think that the most seasoned members from the USA know the answers.
I don't know much about those shutters (i have a couple of Silens, with a knob that allows to manually open the shutter, and keep it that way, if you use a lens fitted in a leaf shutter), so i don't know what's the correct operation when a lens in shutter is fitted to the lensboard of a 2D camera with a behind-the-lens Packard shutter.
How do you keep the Packard permanently in open position?
Do you have a quick answer for all my doubts about the Packard shutter? BTW, from what i see it's permanently fitted to the back of the lensboard, and can't be easily removed during a photographic session.

Another doubt: i have read that Deardorff and Kodak 2D lensboards are of the same size, but the former has no rounded corners, and it's a little thicker.
Having a Calumet C-1 at home (still not completely restored), i have a couple of metal Calumet lensboards, plus two wooden ones, that come with adapters to fit Sinar or Technika/Wista lensboards to a Deardorff camera (with 6x6" lensboards with rounded corners) or a Calumet C-1. That solution is very practical, and allows to mount nearly all my lenses, without removing them from their original boards.
I'd like to do the same with the Kodak 2D. Do you think that it would be easy to adapt Deardorff lensboards to my 2D? My idea, before actually seeing the camera, is to fit the lensboards housing with rounded corners, and put some felt behind, to allow for a tight fit of a slightly thinner board.
Practically speaking, i'd like to make a fixed on-camera adapter. What do you think?
During the work on the wooden parts, it would be nice to use the original back as a sample, to make a new "base" on which to fit a 5x7" Agfa Ansco back i have at home. Somewhere i have also a 4x5 Sinar back, but i am afraid that the minimum extension of the bellows would prevent its effective use. I'd need to mount at least a 90mm.
Have you tried a recessed board?
If yes, which is the minimum focal that you could focus at infinity, with your Kodak 2D?

Any suggestion, even unrelated to my questions, is warmly welcomed

have fun

CJ

[Peter De Smidt]

If you can afford it, I'd have Camera Bellows in the UK make you a new bellows. That way, you'll be good for decades with proper care. If you don't, the chance of developing a light leak at a very in opportune time is fairly high.

Making a 5x7 back shouldn't be too hard. It's a nice format.

[dng88]

My first one is also a 2D (and I also posted questions here about it as well). I got a Deardroff later. The lens board is interchangable to me (and in fact I use a few technica board so that the lens can also be used in my Tachihard 4x5). (You can get a wooden board with the adapter but you need some black tape; these board can be got from eBay).

Yours are actually better than mine, btw and I paid more even before shipping charge as far as I can recall.

[dsphotog]

I'll mention one thing that I like about the 2D.... You can fold it without removing the lens, so it can set up faster than a Deardorff. Plus it costs a lot less!
My free advice, try not to get buyers remorse until you try the thing out.
No one camera is perfect for every use..... Thats why there are so many.
Heck, try 'em all!

[John Jarosz]

Well, it looks pretty dirty to me. Simply cleaning the surface will do wonders for the appearance. You may not have to refinish it unless you're concerned about the aesthetics. I second the comment about getting a new bellows, that's where you should put the money.

The brass parts are in a normal state of oxidation for that vintage camera. You'll need a buffing wheel to break thru that surface it you want to make it bright & shiny.

I can't tell if you live in the US or not, but here we have a refinishing product called Formby's that is solvent based and is very good at removing old finishes without causing the wood to swell. This is because it does not use water. Soaking the parts in it for a few hours and then brushing off the stubborn bits will get you close to bare wood. A light sanding to smooth out the surface and you are ready for a finish. I've used tung oil on 3 2D's over the years. You can put on 2 or 3 coats for simple protection or many coats to get a high gloss. Depends on what you want. Taking off the finish in this way will make the camera appear lighter in tone (the D in 2D represents 'dark') so you see the mahogany grain.

The film holders are etrmely dirty. I'd make sure there's no mold in that case if you decide to use it. The case may also be an infinite source of dust and particles to get onto the film.

You can do as much or as little as you like. It's very close to being 'usable' right now. Have fun.

John

[John Jarosz]

If you have a bellows made, consider sending the old bellows to your vendor. He can use the existing frames and you'll have an easier installation of the new bellows. Or at the very leasy he take take measurements to use on his frames. Ask him.

john

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned two 2Ds and two Deardorffs. Lensboards for the so-called "military" model Deardorffs had square corners and they come up on ebay occasionally or you can have them made but your idea of using an adapter board seems better. I never had a need to use a recessed board on any of the four. I've also never used a Packard shutter and know nothing about them.

I had one of my Deardorffs disassembled and had the brass removed and repolished by a commercial company in that business. IIRC it cost quite a bit of money, something in the $300 - $400 range. I don't think I'd spend that kind of money to do that for a 2D. Of course if you can do all the work yourself that's a different matter. But if it's a functioning camera I'd be inclined to just clean it up as well as you can and use it after replacing the bellows.

Another way I found to spend money on these cameras was to have Richard Ritter add front tilt to one of my 2Ds. He did a very nice job and charged $250. That was about 8 years ago though, he may charge more today.

It sounds to me like you got a good price with the extension rail and tripod block included as long as the camera functions and the lens and shutter are o.k.. You should be able to replace the bellows for around $300 I would think, which means you'd have about $650 in the camera and lens.

I don't understand the purpose of replacing the base of the camera to fit a 5x7 back.

I don't think it's a big advantage to be able to store the camera with a lens on it unless you have only one lens. The time and space savings are minimal and if you have two or more lenses you may have to remove one and replace it with another to make a particular photograph, in which case you spend more time than if you had no lens on the camera to start with.

FWIW - very little - my general impression is that you're planning a lot of work and maybe spending a fair amount of money (especially if you replace the bellows as I think you should) to fit a square peg into a round hole, meaning that you might have been better off buying a camera that was already in the kind of shape and configuration you want and that served whatever your purposes are better than this one. Again though, if you can do the work yourself and enjoy that sort of thing it's a different matter. I can't and don't.

[John Koehrer]

If you're thinking of using the 5X7 as a reducing back, it would work fine. The base may add 4mm to the thickness so it really doesn't matter.
There's a product called "Never Dull" available that cleans old dirt & grime from polished metals very quickly, it is a cotton wadding impregnated with a solvent. You apply it simply by rubbing the surface with a cotton wad, wait until it glazes over & buff it. Just like waxing a car. Most auto parts stores carry it. I bought it at Wal-Mart & it's very inexpensive.
Formby's wood refinisher is very easy to use for the wood, apply it with steel wool & rub gently & the old finish comes right off. It may take a couple of applications but it's just time, no real elbow grease needed. I recently refinished a 5X7 Deardorff using these products & used varnish for the final steps. I'd suggest wiping the varnish on rather than brushing it's much smoother.
FWIW I've got a recessed Deardorff board for sale in the classified section.

[WalterE54]

David, you can fold up a 12" Dagor lens on the 'Dorff if you attach the lensboard in reverse...

[BradS]

Hi all!
Having a great esteem for Jim Galli (i have already browsed most of his personal site, with all the experiments with vintage soft focus lenses), and knowing that he does most of his work with an old Eastman Kodak 2D 8x10, i sent him a PM, asking for a few advices about my freshly purchased camera.
I am re-posting the great part of my PM, asking for suggestions from other forum members, with some experience with that camera.

.........

Any suggestion, even unrelated to my questions, is warmly welcomed

have fun

CJ


Did you not like the answer that Jim Galli gave?

[cyberjunkie]

I'd be inclined to just clean it up as well as you can and use it after replacing the bellows.

Another way I found to spend money on these cameras was to have Richard Ritter add front tilt to one of my 2Ds. He did a very nice job and charged $250. That was about 8 years ago though, he may charge more today.


You're right!
The first thing i will do is cleaning the wood, and protecting it with some kind of very light finish. Then i will clean the brass parts, as i have done with many lenses i own.
Then i will test the camera for some time, and see if the movements are smooth and can be locked firmly.
During the winter i will have all the time to do most of the work myself, and if there is something major to be done, and i am not up to the task, i am fortunate enough to have two friends who can help. One is a restorer of old furniture, and he's very good at restoring old wood, and makes a wonderful shellac finish (in case i will ever decide to dismantle the camera to restore it to its original state). The other friend is very good at restoring vintage shutters, so if the 12" Dagor needs something more than a good cleaning i have somebody who can help me out. Fortunately the Dagor is on a Compound, because US made shutters are not very common in Italy, so he has very little spare parts for them (but i was lucky enough last week: he had a No. 3 Alphax for parts, so we could stole two shutter leaves, that were needed to restore one of my shutters).
Replacing the bellows would be the first thing to do, i agree, but my budget is almost non existant at the moment. I went on a spending spree buying three 8x10 cameras in about six months, all of them needing some kind of adaptation/restoration, and i still have to complete the two previous projects. So at the moment i have very limited resources, until i sell some medium format, 4x5" and 5x7" stuff i don't use anymore, so any major spending must be postponed until i get some money from the stuff i have for sale.
For the moment i hope to be able to fix the bellows, trying to eliminate any pinhole, and doing my best to replace the black tape with something more flexible and durable, and eastetically compatible... :)
My friend has some materials for bellows repairing (fabric, leather, and faux-leather), but nothing in dark red. As far as the patches work well functionally, i think i'll find a way to dye them in dark red.
IMPORTANT - From the pictures i got the impression that the cut in the bellows were caused by the metal "handle" that is clearly visible on top of the Packard shutter.
Knowing almost nothing about Packards, i have no clue about that "handle", if it's an original part fo thecamera, or if it's attached to the shutter.
Somebody's got the answer?

Nice to know that there is somebody who makes a tilting lensboard. Sounds very intriguing :)
Is there any picture available online? If not, does anybody have a picture, that can be posted here?



It sounds to me like you got a good price with the extension rail and tripod block included as long as the camera functions and the lens and shutter are o.k.. You should be able to replace the bellows for around $300 I would think, which means you'd have about $650 in the camera and lens.


From the small research i have made, and from what i see in the pictures, probably it wasn't so bad a deal.
I love Dagors, but i could even sell it, to fund (at least in part) the purchase of new bellows, if the old bellows will not be repairable. After all, i already have the best Dagors, price/performance wise: two G-Claron from the seventies, 305mm and 355mm. For the latter i already found the correct shutter, and i'm still looking for the correct match for the other one.
I have a true fascination for vintage lenses, but if you are not rich, you got to make choices! :(
I'll see, what's sure is that at the moment i'd prefer new bellows, or a soft-focus lens for 8x10, than an abjective that's almost a duplicate.



I don't understand the purpose of replacing the base of the camera to fit a 5x7 back.


I still have plenty of 5x7/13x18 films, and i must sell my old Fatif 5x7.
Even more important, at the moment i can't scan 8x10 films without doing a software stitching, while i can scan up to 5x7" format without any fuss. For the moment i prefer to do contact-printing with 8x10" and digitizing 5x7" film.



FWIW - very little - my general impression is that you're planning a lot of work and maybe spending a fair amount of money (especially if you replace the bellows as I think you should) to fit a square peg into a round hole, meaning that you might have been better off buying a camera that was already in the kind of shape and configuration you want and that served whatever your purposes are better than this one. Again though, if you can do the work yourself and enjoy that sort of thing it's a different matter. I can't and don't.


If everything goes the right way, i hope i'll spend very little money for this camera, as far as the bellows can be repaired.
The square peg into the round hole reminds me of the Deardorff lensboards with rounded corners, fitted into the squared housing of the Kodak 2D.
If anybody is interested, i got a PM by Jim Galli about this matter.
He wrote me that the 2D is thinner, and not the opposite, and that a Deardorff lensboard with rounded corner should be quite easy to fit on a 2D, as long as some material is removed with a router. Of course the work must be done with some care, but if the camera is disassembled, and the front standard removed, anybody with the right tools, and some knowledge, should be able to do the work.


have fun

CJ

[cyberjunkie]

Did you not like the answer that Jim Galli gave?

The answer is already in my previous post.
Better to clarify, tough.
I posted this new thread at the same time i was writing a PM to Jim Galli.
I did this way because i wasn't sure that he could answer soon (as he actually did!).
His answer was very informative, and i have already reported the most interesting part, but it' always good to listed to more sources. Most of the answers given on this forum are either interesting/thought provoking/informative, and i seldom regret having spent some time reading them.

have fun

CJ

[goamules]

I might have missed it, is this an 8x10 size? I have both 5x7 and 8x10. Take if from someone who is restoring a 2D, if you can just clean and polish it's much easier. They did use an awful, dark stain on these, and you can't see any wood grain unless it's stripped. But taking all the pieces off of mine, albeit one that was stupidly painted haze gray, is a real chore. If you polish the brass with brasso or neverdull, in place, and touch up the wood with pledge, it will look like a new camera.

I have a 5x7 reducing back for a 8x10, if you want to trade. I need the 8x10 back.

[LynnRB]

When I purchasedI my 2d I replaced the bellows (UK company) , added front tilt and refinished with a light finish so mine is an Eastman 2L now. The bellows reliablity is the most important to me. I do not take out the 8X10 unless I am serious about capturing the image.

[Jim Galli]

For future reference and readers, here's the text of my return PM;

Nice! Looks like you may have to eventually spring for a new bellows. I think it's probably worth it.

The Packard is mounted inside the camera which is what you want. The one with 2 pistons is the #8. One piston holds it open as long as you want it to stay open 'bulb' if you will, and the other piston is for instantaneous which is about 1/25th sec if all is well with the Packard. T use a modern lens that protrudes into the camera, simply open the packard up and the modern lens will fit nicely into the open aperture of the packard. Packards don't have springs to close them so they'll stay open forever if you want it to. Read the page on my site about Packards.

The Kodak lens boards are thinner where they drop into the camera. So if a Kodak lens board had rounded corners, it would go in a Deardorff fine but it would rattle around. Perhaps someone could router some wood material from the Kodak so that the Deardorff boards could fall in the enlarged slot.

Best of luck. Hope you have some fun with it.

Jim

[jan labij]

Yes, Jim's right about all of this--and especially the packard. I've used packard's for over 50 years. In fact I've never used any other kind of big camera shutter. While techies may claim that I don't know any better, I believe familiarity breeds respect.

[Brian Ellis]

With respect to the issue of repairing or replacing the bellows, if the problem with the bellows is that it was torn or punctured or otherwise damaged as a result of an accident then it makes sense to repair it if you can. But if the problem is pinholes caused by age then I'd replace the bellows. Once pinholes start they don't usually stop. So even if you repair what's there now, it's almost inevitable that more will develop. Which means you should do a bellows check before every photo outing or you risk light leaks and lost photographs because of new pinholes.

Just my opinion of course, others may differ.

[Steven Tribe]

Looks like a useable 8x10 to me. I took a long look at the iris which somehow looks "wrong". Is there a blade missing or is the spacing just uneven?

[Peter De Smidt]

Looking at the pictures, the shutter/aperture definitely need to be serviced, which is no surprise, and the bellows should be replaced. If you find that any of the camera pieces are warped, Richard Ritter can fix the for you, if you can't yourself. My D2 front standard had a warped piece, and Richard fixed it quickly, economically and he did a fine job.

[Robert Vigurs]

I like my 2D. Also an ebay special. I added front tilt, and shift and swing. I made a bellows from a kit, and have so far shot with an older Fujinon 250, 6.7, which affords enough coverage with movements for landscapes. It's a good user in the field. I use older wooden holders, and shield them from the sun with the darkcloth.

[cyberjunkie]

I like my 2D. Also an ebay special. I added front tilt, and shift and swing. I made a bellows from a kit...


Do you have a couple of pictures?
I would like to see how the extra movements were obtained.
I have seen a picture, where front tilt was obtained with a solution similar to the way it's done in Agfa Ansco cameras.

have fun

CJ

[Peter De Smidt]

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/2d2.jpg
http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/2d.jpg

[dsphotog]

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/2d2.jpg
http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/2d.jpg

THAT is GENIUS!!

Thanks for sharing. Too bad I just sold my 2D....

[Jim Galli]

THAT is GENIUS!!

Thanks for sharing. Too bad I just sold my 2D....

Nice thing about that one is you haven't tampered with the integrity of the front standard, so when the day comes when you want to hang a 15" petzval on the front, you can remove the tilt thing and put it on direct as before. You need the strength if you're ever going to go there. 36cm Heliars are taxing. 42cm are impossible on a 2D.

[Peter De Smidt]

THAT is GENIUS!!

It was Richard Ritter's idea and handy work. Like Jim, I wouldn't want to permanently modify the front standard.

[Jim Galli]

THAT is GENIUS!!
....

Eastman did it on their flagship 1928 Eastman Commercial Camera. I have one of these beauties in the attic waiting it's turn. Wood is gorgeous cherry chosen for it's grain. These were flagships made for NY studios with some money to spend. It's believed that after the depression of '29 no more of these were made even though they were offered until 1933. Likely stock on hand. Hopefully Seth will forgive me for borrowing the catalog pages.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/EastmanCommercialCamera.jpg

Color pics here (http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/ekc/eastcomm.htm) but missing the front piece we're talking about.

[Peter De Smidt]

Jim,

I have one of those awaiting restoration as well, although I don't have the front tilt adapter. These are certainly a step up from the 2D in terms of construction, hardware, and wood, although they are quite a bit heavier.

[neil poulsen]

If you can afford it, I'd have Camera Bellows in the UK make you a new bellows. That way, you'll be good for decades with proper care. If you don't, the chance of developing a light leak at a very in opportune time is fairly high.

Making a 5x7 back shouldn't be too hard. It's a nice format.

"Camera Bellows" is now Custom Bellows.

http://www.custombellows.co.uk/

They get my vote. They've made two bellows for me: one before and one after the name change.

[cdholden]

Permanent modification here:
Brass guide rails down the sides, brass knobs, teflon washers between knobs and vertical guide rails to keep damage from brass guide rails when locking down. Click to enlarge.
I bought it with this already done. I'm not sure if it was something simple, like shearing a pin, or if there was fabrication involved.

46656

[Peter De Smidt]

Neat! You have more tilt available than with my lens board adapter.

[cdholden]

And still able to use a 6x6 lens board, allowing a wider range of lenses to choose from. I've only used this once since purchase, and even then, it was with a 14" Ektar. I don't have any "front heavy" lenses that really make this a problem... yet.