another fool with a half plate camera

[Andrew M]

i came across BarryS post the other day and it inspired me to sign up and post this as well. i have mostly kept to myself about my small obsession with the old wooden view cameras...thinking its probably a bit silly in comparison to a 8x10 ,which i want but always get side tracked with some other camera. although i must be looking in the wrong places because i havnt actually seen much in the way of a modern reasonable priced 8x10 to buy.

any way this is my half plate which i always thought was a Thornton Pickard model (it was purchased as that, but which exact one i am not 100% now, it was said to be a triple extention) but reading through BarryS thread i noticed he said some other TP posted on another forum was mis-identified, so now it has caused me doubts. so i am wondering now, if it is a triple extension, amber, perfecta or something else ect

i havnt used this yet as there as a couple of pin holes that i am just inclined to patch neatly from the inside rather than buying new bellows. and the shutter material when held to the light shows light penatrating where the rubbery type covering on the curtain has become a little brittle and split. then because i didnt want to experiment on this shutter incase i mucked it up, i have since bought a few others (as well as some curtain matial) to pull apart and work on.

some old pics of it

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/retrotography/c055_12.jpg

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/retrotography/c142_12.jpg

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/retrotography/c95a_12.jpg

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/retrotography/c724_12.jpg

[BarryS]

Welcome to the club, Andrew. :) Your half-plate is a triple extension, but it looks nothing like a Thornton Pickard Imperial Triple Extension. Interestingly, you have almost the same camera as Sean on APUG and your camera shares a lot of hardware with mine. I think your camera and Sean's dated from about the same time and my camera came from the same maker, but was a later model.

I'm envious that you have a tripod that fits your turntable, they aren't easy to find--at least here in the US. Are there any markings that identify your camera? Your camera was probably identified as a TP because of the disc on the shutter--a very common mistake. What kind of lens have you got--that can sometimes help with identification. I'm glad you posted.

[Andrew M]

Hi Barry,

its been quite some time but i vaugly remember trying to identify it when i first got it. at the time it seemed from all accounts I had at the time, to be a TP although i coundn't nail down exactly which model (but i dont mind finding out if its different)--there are so many and then different years as well.

from memory (i may have details somewhere in the mess thats called a filing system on my computer) i think one thing that made it appear to be TP was the screws/or how they were installed (particularly around the tripod area thinking back) and the other is there are, hmm for lack of a better word, but serial numbers on the various components of timber. and again sorry buts its been a while since i have thought about it but they where said to be what TP did and how they constructed their (some) cameras.

keep a look out on the bay Barry for the tripods i see them pop up resonably regularly, albeit in the UK or Oz--actually my nicest TP tripod ,would you beleive i recently got from the US it has the TP emblem on it and in very nice nick.

this particular kit if course i really like, it came with all the bits in the photo (from the UK), obviously it hasnt been restored. the film holders are good and at some point the previous owner has put some inserts in to take film or glass

[Andrew M]

Barry the lens appears to be french, its difficult to read because it is engraved in script (cursive) but it is a Euryscope Anastigmat 7x5 (what does that mean 7x5, 7 the lenght i assume) the 7 is written like i think the germans do with the little cross line half way down its lenght. then it has which i am not sure if i am reading it correctly but i assume its the maker, Cle'irent & Gilmer, Paris. aperature f6-32

you got me more intrigued so i started looking more closely at the differences in the cameras, you must have some good referances to know about the various makers and when they merged ect. i would like all that myself.

i have an old broucher for TP + some advertisments and McKeowns. like you say it has some differances to a TP and i notice that the quarter cut out curves from the timber, at the top of each side of the front standard frame look like some Houghton camera. then last night i remembered i had an old hard cover catologue for Butcher cameras and equipment from 1922 (i knew it would come in usefull one day!) and it has a picture of the National triple extension (has a clearer picture than Mckeowns) and the knobs and rear strut and the brass piece that attatches to the rear standard looks identical to that.

the struts and U frame for the front standard look very simular as well, however the main panel for the front standard is different and appear a bit more like houghton with the cut outs.

the decorative patern/shape of the front hinges (including where they rise up the sides to the point) look the same as Butchers models 3,4 and 5 as well

[BarryS]

Good work Andrew--it looks like I started the gears turning. :) All my references are available on the internet--you're in a better position than me with McKeowns and your brochures. Your lens is a Clement et Gilmer-- apparently a rapid anastigmat, which was a variation of the rapid rectilinear (from the lens Vade Mecum). It's meant to cover 5x7--which is slightly larger than half-plate. Apparently, Clement and Gilmer exported a lot of lens to the British market, so if you see that lens pop up in a brochure packaged with a similar camera--it might be a clue. The VM also mentions that these lenses were also supplied to Fallowfield Ltd., a general photographic supplier that put their brand on cameras and lenses. Of course it's difficult to confirm if the lens originally came with the camera.

I've noticed the same hardware matches with Butcher and Sons and the Houghton-like front standard details. It's possible that some workshops supplied cameras to both companies and to general photographic suppliers. There may have been a close relationship before the companies merged in 1915, so a single workshop might have had access to the brass fittings and camera plans necessary to make a hybrid camera--intended to be sold under the name of a general supplier. If you could post a scan of the 1922 Butcher catalog, it would be very helpful.

[Jiri Vasina]

... a Euryscope Anastigmat 7x5 (what does that mean 7x5, 7 the lenght i assume) ...

Andrew, that notation means that the lens is an Anastigmat intended to cover 5×7" format. It does not speak of focal length... that you will have to find out yet...

[Andrew M]

Thanks Jiri,
that seems so obvious now i wonder why i didnt occure to me! i guess i havnt seen to many lenses with this type of markings.

I did a test to find the Focal length last night. i am not sure if the best way, most accurate or even correct, but for some reason i remember this as a method from years ago.
i set it up and focused on some lights a few blocks away (hmm maybe less than 1klm) and took a measurement of distance between the front and rear standards. then brought it inside taped a ruler to the wall and focused on it until it showed (1:1 i think people call it) true size on the ground glass checking with a ruler on the glass. than took another measurment between the standards and subtracted the first from it. the result was 235mm-240mm over a few tests (appox 9 1/2 inch).

Barry i got my son to scan the Butcher camera for me. he wouldnt do all the catalogue as it is more like a book at 200+pages long and being a hard cover bending it open flat was causing it damage. 1922

[Ernest Purdum]

Your focal length measurement method is basically entirely correct and limited only by the accuracy of setting infinity and 1:1 focus.

[Ole Tjugen]

Barry the lens appears to be french, its difficult to read because it is engraved in script (cursive) but it is a Euryscope Anastigmat 7x5 (what does that mean 7x5, 7 the lenght i assume) the 7 is written like i think the germans do with the little cross line half way down its lenght. then it has which i am not sure if i am reading it correctly but i assume its the maker, Cle'irent & Gilmer, Paris. aperature f6-32

That would be Clement et Gilmer, 140 Faubourg St. Martin, Paris, France, I presume?

The Euryscope Anastigmat might be a triplet. It is certainly not equivalent to the Voigtländer Euryskop/Euryscope, which was an Aplanat, but the name might have been chosen for the positive associations?

If it's marked for 7x5 (=5x7"), it is likely to be around 210mm focal length. Measure the front glass diameter, multiply by 8, and see if I guessed right. ;)

[Glenn Thoreson]

Weren't the f/6 lenses of that period Extra Rapid Aplanats? It seems to me an Anastigmat lens would be a little faster. Like 4.5 to 5.6 or so. The speed of the Anastigmats of the period was their prime selling point.

[Ole Tjugen]

The speed of the Anastigmats of the period was their prime selling point.

No, the selling point was their greatly reduced astigmatism which gave a flatter image field - or at least an evenly curved one which didn't depend on orientation of the subject.

Really fast Aplanats were down to f:4 (but very few, Petzvals were preferred for this); "normal" ones were f:7 to f:8, wide field from f:10, and wide anle around f:16. Note that the Protar (serie V) was f:18...

[Andrew M]

Hi Ole,

now that the words Clement et Gilmer has been suggested it is easy to make out the lettering as such, with the exception the 'et' still looks like a little artistic flair has been used and is difficult to make out as that easily, the word Clement is now obvious except it does have a little ' over the first "e" in the word.

the visable diameter of the front lens appears to be 33mm (33x8=264), which would make it a longer focal length at 264mm.

i dont think it looks like a triplet, the front and rear lens measure the same diameter and appear to be the same thickness (i unscrewed them to measure) and no third element. i am not sure how to tell if the lens elements are cemented but the shapes of each lens appear consistant with the diagrams in Kingslake's lens book dipicting the Rapid Rectilinear, Aplanat and Euryscope (all the same design with different names according to this book).

[Glenn Thoreson]

Ole, you're right and not entirely right about the early Anastigmats. Most literature I have from the period doesn't usually mention the astigmatism part. It really pushes the speed. I think this was meant for the amateur who wanted to be able to take pictures in poor light and be able to go home the same day. :D In fact, that was exactly the pitch that was put forth in the advertisements. Other literature I have buried in this mess lists the f/6 lenses as Extra Rapid Aplanats. I don't suppose, by any means, that they all were, though. My Busch Detectiv Aplanat f/6 is engraved Extra Rapid, also. I suppose that means it's more rapider that the f/8 variety, or f/4 US, if you will. It's a great mystery, I tells ya! I live by the advice I usually give others though - "What difference does it make? Shoot some film and see if it makes a picture". Most of 'em do.

[Andrew M]

Your focal length measurement method is basically entirely correct and limited only by the accuracy of setting infinity and 1:1 focus.


thanks for the confirmation Ernst. i'm confident i was accurate with measuring, more so the extra times i did it. i used a paper thin ruler on the glass and matched it to the ruler on the wall using a lupe. it certainly took some time and not as quick/easy as i thought it would be (not difficult tho). it was neccesary to move the camera back or forward very small amounts to get it perfect and of course fine focus adjustments. also level with the ruler on the wall.

i'm not sure how accurate the 8x the front diameter method is..i just checked against some other lenses with the focal length written on them and it doesnt match up the same