Empire State 8x10 Camera back options

[domaz]

So I picked up an 8x10 Empire State Camera recently because I just couldn't bear to let it languish in the Midwest Antique shop where I found it and also I was hoping to get into 8x10. The problem I found is that although the camera has a spring back it doesn't seem to take standard 8x10 film holders. The back is about half an inch to wide for standard film holders and possibly a little to long. Does anyone know if these old 8x10 backs can be somehow modified to take standard holders?

[Michael Roberts]

Sure they can be modified. Richard Ritter is one person who does this kind of work. Be sure to check the t-distance also (the distance from the o/s of the film holder to the film=the distance from where the film holder rests to the i/s of the gg).

If you choose to modify it yourself, you can simply glue in some craft wood strips--1/4, 1/2 inch thick--whatever you need--to the top and bottom and end of the film holder retainer portion of the spring back and give it a fresh coat of flat black paint.

If the t-distance is off, you may need to add a spacer to the inside of the gg frame.

I have an 1899 camera on which Richard brought the t-distance to standard.

[rknewcomb]

When you glue in craft wood to reduce the size of the opening in the spring back so it will take standard holders you also have to trim off some of the wood in the groundglass surround - Since you made the opening into which the wooden groundglass surround fits, you also have to trim the groundglass frame to make it smaller. Sometimes you might then find issues with how the springs then fit onto the spring back part. They can often be repositioned, but best to look at it carefully and envision whats going to happen. Also, look at where the light trap retaining rib on the standard holders falls relative to where it is on the old camera back. Its not all that hard, but more to it then a quick glue job.
Rbt

[winterclock]

These are not really that simple to modify. Spacers keep the focus glass from seating correctly, I at first taped the spacers to the film holders, but the ridge on international holders does not have a place to seat in the Empire back. My final solution was to make an adapter to use an inexpensive Burke & James back, I still have the Empire back as well as one Empire plate holder and film sheaths if I ever want to give them a try. It took me a year of watching on fleabay just to get the one holder!

[lenser]

I've got this exact same set up and I've been trying to determine how to make the same modification. I've about concluded that it is really best to set the original back aside, get something like a back for a 2D and modify the main attachment plate to fit the camera body by adding a spacer between the camera frame and the replacement back. That way the actual seating for the film holders is kept accurate for the current style of 8x10 holder.

Once upon a time, I tracked this camera through the George Eastman House and was assured that it was made in the early to mid-1890's. That seems to imply, and I'm wondering if I'm guessing correctly that the original holders for this camera would have been for glass plates and might have been a bit larger and more robust all around.

[winterclock]

The original holder is almost an inch wider and slightly longer than a graflex international holder, as well as slightly thicker. The surface of the glass plate seems to be spaced almost exactly the same as modern film plane spacing, with a sheath in place it measures the same as the graflex holder. The light trap ridge on the original holder is on the outer edge of the holder and contacts the side of the back when fully inserted. I tried several ways of taping spacers, both on the camera back and the film holders, but the best solution I found was to adapt a new back to fit the camera.

[domaz]

Thanks everyone. Sounds like I'm going to be on the lookout for an 8x10 back. In the meantime I have a 5 x 7 back which I can adapt as a reducing back.

[eddie]

Is it a 7x11 back?

[Louis Pacilla]

Is it a 7x11 back?


As far as I know ROC never made the Empire State in 7x11

Eastman#2/2d, Korona View & possibly Seneca View. All for a very short period of time. somewhere around 10 years as sadly it never really caught on.

I think that's a shame because this format rocks. Great for standing figures & mast of all landscape & architectural subjects.

[domaz]

Is it a 7x11 back?

The opening in the back of the camera is 9 9/16" x 7 10/16" so I'm guessing no.

[eddie]

The opening in the back of the camera is 9 9/16" x 7 10/16" so I'm guessing no.

The opening has no bearing as long as it is that close. The ops info the back of a century studio 8x10 cameras 9.5 in square......But ian sure louis is correct. He knows all this kind of stuff.

[Randy]

The back on my Folmer & Schwing 8X10 has about 1/4" of space all the way around the film holder when inserted (sides and bottom). I have only two old wooden holders that fit correctly, the rest are modern Lisco holders. When I use the modern holders, I just keep my dark cloth over the camera back while making the exposure. I have never had fogged negs.