It is touching the past. We are all somewhat sentimental, we photographers. Every photograph is a slice of time.
I bought a late model Ansco, $200. I modify it as necessary. It has all the history I need. I hope my pictures are honored as appropriate relics. I plan to use my camera up!
Cheers,
Rigidity is kind of an odd parameter for comparison. According to that criteria, implying current modern cameras are more rigid and therefore superior, Adams, Weston, Avedon, et al. couldn't take a good picture for lack of adequate rigidity.
I got a Deardorff simply because it was the best thing available for the money I had to spend at the moment. Not at all disapointed. After a year's use in the perenial Kansas wind, I have yet to make a shot that was jittered. Most exposures run at the 1/10 to 1/2 second range. So I don't understand your claim that more rigid is better.
"It is touching the past. We are all somewhat sentimental, we photographers. Every photograph is a slice of time. "
On the contrary, sentiment is the last thing I want in my photographs
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Put your hands on a Kodak Master and your deardorff will look like fire wood.
My house is the same vintage as the Deardorffs and it has the same problem: not a ninety-degree angle anywhere in the place.
Herb,
My old 'dorff still gets used and to me its use has become intuitive. My failures are my own---I cannot find fault with my scarred up old camera, single coated lenses, wooden film holders or old tripod. If a kit still does what its supposed to do, whats wrong with using it? If the total cost is less than any of the new woodies currently manufactured, where is the extravigance? If the darn thing appreciates in value every time one gets sold on eBay, where is the foolishness?
I'm puzzled by this post, because I see 'dorffs as using tools, and pretty good ones for the purpose they were intended
Comparing 'dorffs and other classic old cameras like the Ansco and Century Universals and Graphics (and Leicas) to modern counterparts is futile. For sure a new camera will no doubt be more rigid, especially since it hasn't had 60-70 years of "professional grade" wear(consider this---most of the old view cameras around today weren't built for amatuers---they were professional models that saw daily use shooting catalogs and such---something few if any Wisners or Ebonys will ever experience!) OTOH you can't even prove that a new camera will even stay in one piece for as long (unless of course you're willing to wait around for another 60-70 years to see)
I'd rather be taking pictures:-)
Cheers!
PS: Dang! I guess I'm a luddite!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I'm still looking for the "right" 8x10. I envy those who's camera found them...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Rigidity? I sometime use an old D2 where I attach to the lensboard a modified 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 speed graphic shutter + a 300 f 4.5 Heliar, or sometime a Conley extra rapid, a monster .
I can hear the camera moaning in pain , but so far hasn't dropped any lens in revenge.
No blurred images, just a little bit of guilt for the lack of respect i have toward this old lady who deserve rest after almost a century of existence.
My Deardorff does everything that I ask of it, without complaint. It is rigid enough, light enough, compact enough, has enough movements and bellows , big enough lensboards, and it's beautiful. I hope that non-Deardorff owners are as happy with their cameras as I am with mine.
Jay
Tim, I love my Great Aunt's sideboard but I wouldn't want to take it more than 50ft from the road.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks