PDA

View Full Version : Best 100-year old Rochester-Made 8x10 to Restore?



Frank Petronio
18-Jul-2008, 13:48
Seeing how nice some of your camera restoration projects have turned out -- especially William's 12x20 the other day -- I am wondering which of the early 1900s 8x10s made in Rochester (Korona, Folmer, Ansco (close enough!)) wooden field cameras are the best candidates for successful restoration?

In terms of getting a nice "user" out of the process, especially one that is tight and solid and not "a bundle of sticks" so to speak. Speaking about making restorations and even improvements -- not collector's items.

Somebody had a beautiful chrome and dark wood wide angle model pictured here a couple of weeks ago but I can't find it... but that was so nice. But more of a normal all-arounder that isn't a beast would be my choice. Maybe even a hot-rodded version with a fresnel and other enhancements?

ic-racer
18-Jul-2008, 14:54
I can comment on my Century (I think it was made in Rochester).

Depending on what you are after, it is somewhat of a 'labor of love.' My camera is a little wobbly on both standards and requires special care. However, I am amazed at how well the negatives come out. I don't think I have lost any negatives to anything I would ascribe to camera movement or focus shift. I do take extra measures to minimize the wobble, like removing the dark-cloth for the exposure and using a extra long floppy release cable. Sometimes I think I should get a contemporary camera, but the Century's value is in its light weight, compact design and simplicity. I just printed a recent negative from the Century last night (after not using it for a few months) and the focus and edge to edge sharpness were awesome.

I thought about 'hot rodding' mine during the restoration, but it seemed every little part was already very well designed and engineered by someone smarter than myself. So it seemed that to really improve it would require almost building a whole new camera. I use a f5.6 lens and it is fine with no fresnel. I did modify the bellows design by making them about 1/4 shorter because I'm using a 210mm and don't even have the focusing rail extension to use the original bellows draw.
My guess is that any of them will perform only a well as the operator and the degree to which they have been restored to functioning condition.

Mark Sawyer
18-Jul-2008, 15:06
I'd say look for an Eastman Commercial View. It's only a little heftier than other similar field cameras, but more solid (if you find a good one) and has full movements. It may take a while to find one, though...

The 2D is a wonderful camera, and is the culmination of quite a few evolutionary steps. There are quite a few of them around, so they're not hard to find.

If you want something lighter in weight, a Seneca Improved. Those are finished in black laquer or enamel.

And there's always the Deardorff from Chicago...

Kirk Keyes
18-Jul-2008, 16:05
I have an Improved Seneca, and I can't say it's light, but I haven't really compared it with the others...

But it has its original black laquer and chrome finish and it looks beautiful.

Mike Castles
18-Jul-2008, 16:15
Hmmmm, Let's see. The Kodak/Eastman No. 2 is a nice camera, have an example in 7x11. Then there is the Korona 8x10 I have, love everything about it EXCEPT Korona's tend to jump the teeth on the front rail more often than the K/E does (which is quite smooth I might add). The next 8x10, and while it is a dog needing some TLC, is the Rochester Optical Company Empire. One look at it and you see where some cameras got their inspiration. It folds up into a nice small (ok resonable) footprint, is light compared to the others and had some movements. If I recall, Tri has the same camera in 11x14 (in much better condition I might add). The ROC cost all of $100, and just need a little work to get it in user service - though right now it seems to be headed to a new home, where it will used for wet-plates.

Glenn Thoreson
18-Jul-2008, 16:23
Those black Senecas are a striking camera. I have an old Conley 8X10 tail board camera that is very light and easy to use. I only have enough bellows draw to use a 14" Commercial Ektar for landscapes. It weighs about half what the camera weighs. :D I stick to a 240/5.6 Sironar N for most things, though. I have a Kodak 2D that I resurrected, also. It weighs about twice as much as the Conley. A more rigid camera, though. I still like the Conley better.

Pete Roody
18-Jul-2008, 16:35
I second the vote for the Century Universal. Ed Weston used one. Smaller and lighter than a Deardorff with more movements.

SAShruby
18-Jul-2008, 16:45
Those black Senecas are a striking camera. I have an old Conley 8X10 tail board camera that is very light and easy to use. I only have enough bellows draw to use a 14" Commercial Ektar for landscapes. It weighs about half what the camera weighs. :D I stick to a 240/5.6 Sironar N for most things, though. I have a Kodak 2D that I resurrected, also. It weighs about twice as much as the Conley. A more rigid camera, though. I still like the Conley better.

You wouldn't believe how beautiful Seneca looks if you strip that black paint. I restored Seneca's back and it looks lovely.
BTW, Did you know that with very slight modification, Seneca's back fits Deardorff spot on? I wonder if Seneca in fact wasn't a foundation for Deardorff cameras.

wfwhitaker
18-Jul-2008, 16:48
Frank,

There are a lot of wood 8x10's out there. Aesthetics determine much of what makes one more desirable than another. My advice would just be to find one which appeals to you and go for it. It helps if you find one which has all its hardware and which hasn't been sitting in a damp basement for the last eighty years. Likewise, extension rails, the correct back, tripod blocks and other peripheral items are nice to have. Almost no camera of the vintage you're talking about has a bellows which doesn't have at least pinholes. Bellows can be replaced fairly easily. So don't let a raggedy bellows dissuade you. If the camera is solid and you like it, it's worth restoring. Good shooters include Agfa's and 2D's. But there are others. Conley's and Korona's can be quite pretty. I have a weakness for Folmer & Schwing cameras. But some of their 8x10's take Sterling holders which are different from standard modern holders. You might be able to make a new back or adapt one from another camera, but sometimes it's a lot of work to get it to look right as well as work right.

Jim Galli
18-Jul-2008, 16:52
Contact me off line for pics of an Eastman #1 8X10. Complete and easily made very pretty but you'll have to do the new bellows thing like Will did.

Ernest Purdum
18-Jul-2008, 18:23
Hey! I'm not 100 years old and neither is the Century Universal! It is an interesting design with more movements than most and it forms a box when closed up. On the other hand, condition is all important. These don't stand up as well as Speed Graphics.

100 years ago - 1908 or thereabouts. The Eastman No. 1 has already been mentioned, but there is also the No. 2, a deluxe version. At that time the F&S view cmera offerings were probably bigger and heavier than you'd be interested in, but how about the R.B. Cycle Graphic. It has as much movements capability as some of the view cameras of the period, neaning not much. It folds up better, though, and yes, it did come in the 8X10 size.

Have you ever seen one of the cameras with doors that open at front and rear? The Gennert version has the best craftsmanship I have ever seen on an American camera. The Korona version was their "VI Special" If you extended the bellows both directions, you got 40" extension. Probably more than you'd want or need. Getting back to view cameras, there are many by several makers that are close enough in design that condition is far more important than who the maker was. Availability is all-important too, there aren't all that many century old 8X10's around.

Jim Galli
18-Jul-2008, 19:38
I would note for Frank that although the Century's are fine useful cameras, they really aren't knock down gorgeous. They were made in the era when everything got rather drab. Very dark and although the wood was probably fine cherry or mahogany they're so dark you don't see it. Nothing like the warm hues of Will's 12X20 if that is part of the romance you are after.

wfwhitaker
18-Jul-2008, 19:51
I know you must have seen this web site:
http://www.fiberq.com/cam/index.htm

So many neat old cameras!

I'll counter Jim and say that I have a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 Century that's one of the nicest cameras I've seen. No, not "knock-down gorgeous", but an absolutely beautifully made camera - probably the Ebony of its day. Very solid. All geared movements. The whole camera translates fore and aft on a geared tripod block. For close-ups, set the magnification, focus by moving the camera. The wood appears to be cherry and yes, I guess you could call it dark, but not like a 2D sort of dark. You can still tell what kind of wood it is. But I can't find a picture of one just like it anywhere on the web. Stuff just shows up. Different stuff. Keep your eyes open and your wallet ready. Frank, there's a camera out there somewhere looking for you.

eddie
18-Jul-2008, 19:53
I would note for Frank that although the Century's are fine useful cameras, they really aren't knock down gorgeous. They were made in the era when everything got rather drab. Very dark and although the wood was probably fine cherry or mahogany they're so dark you don't see it. Nothing like the warm hues of Will's 12X20 if that is part of the romance you are after.

i do not know. check out this page:

http://slalom.20megsfree.com/about.html

i must say, i have played with a century universal and they are fine cameras. i will shoot with one tomorrow and get back with you. light too. i will get an exact weight in a few days. if i fall in love with it this weekend i may have to put my chamonix on the block! i almost wish i never handled it.

eddie

Jim Fitzgerald
18-Jul-2008, 20:51
Frank, I think my 8x10 Seneca Improved in black is a very nice light camera. Simple to operate and sturdy. Maybe now that I have stopped building cameras I may strip the black and see what the wood looks like.

Jim

Jim Galli
18-Jul-2008, 21:00
i do not know. check out this page:

http://slalom.20megsfree.com/about.html

i must say, i have played with a century universal and they are fine cameras. i will shoot with one tomorrow and get back with you. light too. i will get an exact weight in a few days. if i fall in love with it this weekend i may have to put my chamonix on the block! i almost wish i never handled it.

eddie

Mine looked like the before pics. Brightwork was like gray paint and wood was coffee gray. Bellows replaced mid '50's with one of the plasticcy looking red ones. Totally usable but trust me, it wasn't pretty by anyone's standards. Still my 2D I use the most is just as homely or perhaps worse. Tomorrow I'm going to a big cowboy wing ding at a local ranch. I'm taking the Eastman Improved #2 711 810 because it really is a very pretty camera.

Frank Petronio
18-Jul-2008, 22:10
So basically an old body for a few hundred bucks, $250 for new bellows, and 20-40 hours of elbow grease results in a very useful camera -- albeit maybe not as tight or with as many moves as a new Chamonix, but much more interesting and perfectly fine for general portraits and landscape shooting?

;-)

From what people are saying, individual condition is the most important thing, followed by an emotional bond with the camera's looks, and lastly by the feature set. How refreshing!

Turner Reich
18-Jul-2008, 22:19
I restored a black Seneca 8x10 leaving it black but the wood must be Mahogany or Cherry, it's that color. I have two Seneca 5x's and might strip one down and see what it looks like.

The Kodaks are nice but heavier than the Seneca's.


You wouldn't believe how beautiful Seneca looks if you strip that black paint. I restored Seneca's back and it looks lovely.
BTW, Did you know that with very slight modification, Seneca's back fits Deardorff spot on? I wonder if Seneca in fact wasn't a foundation for Deardorff cameras.
__________________

RichSBV
18-Jul-2008, 22:27
The Century Universal is supposed to have a grey metal finish. It was painted lacquer and very new at the time. Also very durable. The story of it being tarnished silver plating is way off and wrong. I always try to convince people to leave CU's in their original condition as there are few enough of them still around and it's just a shame to have them "reconditioned".

On the other hand. Many of the CU's have red vinyl bellows. They were direct factory replacements from the older leather bellows. They look good and function great.

As for the metal fittings... The grey paint was standard however, I have two here that are factory plated. One in silver and one in gold. Graflex would do just about anything for money and the CU's were the finest cameras built in their day. No doubt there were other fancy mods done right from the factory...

I still stand by leaving any CU in it's original condition. Nothing wrong with cleanups, minor repairs and tightening things up though. Just too few of them left...

Jim Galli
18-Jul-2008, 22:51
My newly restored Korona 5X12

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/512s/512_0.jpg

New bellows, lots of elbow grease and lemon oil. The gear train is laughable. It waddles all over the rails like the proverbial mud hen. But the emotional bond is definitely there. I love using this thing.

Turner Reich
18-Jul-2008, 23:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you must have seen this web site:
http://www.fiberq.com/cam/index.htm

It's interesting that the "New Improved Seneca" cameras are the only black painted one's. Before that the beauty of the wood was the show of the day.

Jim Galli
18-Jul-2008, 23:39
It's interesting that the "New Improved Seneca" cameras are the only black painted one's. Before that the beauty of the wood was the show of the day.

Cameras and Model T's both went black at about the same time. The Victorian era was over and modern was in.

Frank Petronio
18-Jul-2008, 23:52
Well Mr. Galli just sold me a camera "out of the blue".

Darn it I hate when that happens....

Now I have to sell a camera, being a minimalist and all.

Pete Watkins
19-Jul-2008, 00:18
Frank,
If the fittings are brass try to get them hot laquered (shellac/resin based laquer, not cellulose) they'll really have a warm glow and it lasts for years.
Pete.

Turner Reich
19-Jul-2008, 02:09
Frank,
If the fittings are brass try to get them hot lacquered (shellac/resin based lacquer, not cellulose) they'll really have a warm glow and it lasts for years.
Pete.

Or have them Gold plated for the really classic look. Can't wait to see it when you're done.

eddie
19-Jul-2008, 04:04
Well Mr. Galli just sold me a camera "out of the blue".

Darn it I hate when that happens....

Now I have to sell a camera, being a minimalist and all.

how about a before picture?

David A. Goldfarb
19-Jul-2008, 05:16
The main attraction of old wooden cameras, for me, is the availability of formats I couldn't otherwise afford or shoot enough to justify in a new camera, like 7x17" and 11x14". The old wooden cameras also seem to be considerably lighter in general than most of the modern designs with more features. Of course that has its downsides as well, like more flexible beds, but if I can get the camera into the field, I figure I can get it to hold still for half a second or however long it needs to.

Frank Petronio
19-Jul-2008, 07:18
For an 8x10 I know an old Calumet C1 is probably still the best bang for the buck, and a $800 Sinar 8x10 is hard to beat... or a Chamnoix or Arca on the upper end... but I think I'll go the wood route for a change -- I think my subjects (people) will respond to it quite favorably.

If it wobbles, that is what duct tape and fiberglass cloth is for, right?

(Jim assures me this one just needs a bellows and elbow grease, as my woodworking skills are primitive.)

Wish I could afford Jorge's Arca tho ;-)

wfwhitaker
19-Jul-2008, 09:26
So what did you get Frank?

BarryS
19-Jul-2008, 13:21
Sounds like he bought an Eastman #1 from Jim. If I can rehab a 2D, then it's simple enough for most people. :)

Frank Petronio
19-Jul-2008, 18:17
Yep Jim sold me a sweet Eastman #1 -- as always, buying equipment from Jim is a pleasure (and easy to do!)

So, for a light 8x10 like this, what size/model Ries would be a good match?

wfwhitaker
19-Jul-2008, 20:39
Somebody had a nice Bolex tripod with a Baco head on it for sale recently which would be dandy. ;)

Frank Petronio
19-Jul-2008, 20:56
Yeah, nobody is bidding on it so I think that Baco head might stay around here but those shiny Aluminum legs just don't jive with the wood. But those Ries tripod really do look nice, especially with an old wooden camera.

Of course I am being totally impractical, I have a great CF Gitzo and this is a really lightweight camera, so mixing the old with the new actually makes the most sense from a real user point of view.

I was going to put a modern lens on it anyway ;-p

wfwhitaker
19-Jul-2008, 21:20
A J100 is probably more than adequate. I'm using a a J600 Backpacker with the J250 head under my Eastman #2 Improved 7x11 which is a little bigger and probably heavier than the camera you're getting. It's more than adequate.

Pete Roody
20-Jul-2008, 09:21
-- I think my subjects (people) will respond to it quite favorably.

Wish I could afford Jorge's Arca tho ;-)

Frank,


For environmental portraiture, you can't beat a vintage wood camera. My Ansco always generated interest from people. When I switched to an Arca, I noticed a change in reactions. People assume I am doing commercial work with the Arca.

If you are looking for a really nice vintage Ries for the camera, check out:

http://www.glennview.com/tripod.htm

Pete

Jim Noel
22-Jul-2008, 08:26
MY x10 Century Universal is wonderful. Everything locks down securely so I don't have to worry about it shaking in the wind.
I also have a beautiful 5x7 Seneca, not the Improved, from 1903 which is in similar condition.

Mike Fiction
19-Aug-2008, 06:46
I'm going through the same thing right now. I'd like an old 8x10 to restore - where's the best place to find the old 8x10's?

I've looked on ebay but there's no way to tell if the seller knows anything and the prices are all over the place. I'm thinking a Kodak 2D or something along those lines.

Mike Fiction
19-Aug-2008, 07:17
Oh yeah, another question - I'm planning to use what I get for portraits - can the 2D and other 8x10's of that era back be removed and placed in portrait position or is is it fixed? I assume so but I didn't see anything on the web.

Mark Sampson
19-Aug-2008, 07:34
20+ years ago I had a Rochester Optical Co. 8x10 "Carlton". 1890's I guess. It had the most gorgeous mahogany I've ever seen, and bad bellows. It had a small lensboard, maybe 4" sq. I never used it, and traded it for a gray 8x10 Ansco. That was a later camera, 1940's?,(made in Binghamton N.Y.,close enough?) it had been used hard and was rickety even before I tried taking the gray paint off to get a natural "blonde" finish. That wasn't a good idea. I loaned it to a friend in New England, who still has it. Along the way I bought an Eastman 2-D for $100. It needed a complete refinishing, so I turned it over for the same price and have stayed with 4x5 since. My point? Any of them will do the job if its condition is good.

snuck
19-Aug-2008, 18:05
Well you saw me with a Korona in the Brickworks. If you liked what you saw, the 8x10 is just a size larger.

Gene McCluney
19-Aug-2008, 18:10
Oh yeah, another question - I'm planning to use what I get for portraits - can the 2D and other 8x10's of that era back be removed and placed in portrait position or is is it fixed? I assume so but I didn't see anything on the web.


Almost all 8x10 wood view cameras made for cut film holders have "reversable" backs, which can be placed in either the Horizontal or Vertical positions. The 2D and other brands of cameras of this period can certainly have their backs orientated Vertical or Horizontal.

Jim Galli
20-Aug-2008, 06:20
Oh yeah, another question - I'm planning to use what I get for portraits - can the 2D and other 8x10's of that era back be removed and placed in portrait position or is is it fixed? I assume so but I didn't see anything on the web.

Here's where I've landed on this with experience with about every camera mentioned here.The Kodak 2D is among the sturdiest for holding a lens on it's 6X6 lens panel that can be interesting for portraiture. It also being one of the simplest allows just enough room inside behind the front bulkhead for a Packard shutter. Also very important for those big lenses that work best for portraits. A 6 1/2" Packard with 3 1/2" hole fits just behind the bulkhead and in front of the first bellows pleat. There are many tradeoffs with these antique cameras. Some are too big and heavy and clunky. And some are too spindly. For me at least the Ansco's and Burke James are the former, and the Korona is the latter. The 2D was the best of all the trade off's I have found. About 80+% of the images on my web pages are made with my old Kodak 2D. It's has proven so useful that the Deardorff has languished for about the last 2 1/2 years.

Mark Sampson
20-Aug-2008, 08:27
Well, the 2-D worked for Alfred Stieglitz...

Jim Galli
20-Aug-2008, 09:40
Well, the 2-D worked for Alfred Stieglitz...

Yep, and his had a Packard inside :D:D

Mark Sampson
20-Aug-2008, 12:23
And a 12" Dagor on the front. It was on display at the George Eastman House a few years back; "battered" is the best word to describe its condition.

Dave Wooten
20-Aug-2008, 13:44
Or have them Gold plated for the really classic look. Can't wait to see it when you're done.


That would be a classy look indeed! From my experience with musical instruments and trumpet design work, to gold plate brass we always silver plated it first, then gold plated over the silver.:)