PDA

View Full Version : Speed Graphic a View Camera or not?



TheDeardorffGuy
17-Jan-2012, 22:33
In another thread I said a Speed Graphic was NOt a view camera. A responder said it had a ground glass it was a view camera. To my way of thinking a Speed graphic is not a view camera. It is a Large Format camera that has limited movements to enhance focus and shift when mounted on a tripod. To be a true View camera rear perspective movements are needed. Even my Deardorff Triamapro is not a View camera. No rear movements. Do not flame this post. I'm just looking for others thoughts.

Vaughn
17-Jan-2012, 22:46
I would call it a press camera that is sometimes pressed into service as a view camera.

They do have front tilt (backwards and forward, using the drop bed) and rise. So it can be used as a view camera with limited movements.

Other than that, it all depends on one's particular definition -- which no law or regulation states precisely. So there is no wrong or right in the matter -- call it what ever one wants. Definitely not worth arguing about, unless one just likes to argue!

Vaughn

banjo
17-Jan-2012, 23:31
Yes and minty of 5x7s & 8x10 don't have any front movements!!! SO!!
a ground glass makes it a view camera AS not all Crown or speeds have
a rangerfinder!!

Roger Thoms
18-Jan-2012, 00:42
My thoughs are that yes they are view cameras since they have a ground glass that can be used for composing and focusing, but that they are a specialized type since they can also be used without ever looking at the ground glass, have limited movements, and can even used hand held.

Roger

cyrus
18-Jan-2012, 00:47
This is really an arbitrary definition. Graphics are technically "press cameras" - I suppose they can be seen as a subset of view cameras but which are handheld and usually the ground glass is NOT used on these cameras (old time press photographers would not have had the time to carefully compose a shot, and then insert the filmholder etc.)

Leigh
18-Jan-2012, 01:31
To my mind any camera that has movements, regardless of the specifics, is a "view" camera.

The point being that it enables the user to change the "view" of the subject.

In the specific case of press cameras...
Those movements are never used for press photography (at least I never used them when doing newspaper shots with a Graphic).

- Leigh

Leo Salazar
18-Jan-2012, 05:53
What makes a View Camera ?

The image viewing system or the movements ?

Having a groundglass makes a View Camera ?

Or having "ALL" movements make a View Camera ?

Wouldn't it be that Press cameras are a sub cathegory of View Cameras designed to be hand held ?

Bearing this distinction then Press cameras are view cameras.

How about Technical Cameras ?

These, having more movement freedom can still be hand held but are closer to having more movements.

But both have groundglasses -along with other viewing systems-

Wich would we think is the purest iso type of view camera from wich to establish the norm...?

Monorail ? Flatbed ?

Thanks !

Leo

Dan Fromm
18-Jan-2012, 06:20
Who cares?

David de Gruyl
18-Jan-2012, 06:21
To be completely honest, it never occurred to me that the number / type of movements had anything to do with a camera being a view camera. To me, if you could see a direct projection of the image on the ground glass (as opposed to via a mirror) the camera in question is a view camera.

Press cameras are usually also view cameras, although they are tough to operate that way.

Field cameras are a subset of view cameras.

Studio cameras are the ones you can bend into a pretzel.

While I am at it: rear movements are not required. Every rear movement can be made by moving the tripod / tripod head and compensating with the front. That being said, they are convenient.

Jim Jones
18-Jan-2012, 07:01
Rolliflex has convenient ground glass focusing. That hardly makes it a view camera. Nor is a Speed Graphic. Press camera is a better term for it, and technical camera for the Linhoff. A B&J Rembrandt has some rear movements, but is hardly a view camera. Perhaps portrait camera best describes it. My Kodak 2D has limited movements, but may best be called a view camera.

David de Gruyl
18-Jan-2012, 07:21
Rolleiflex is a TLR... and therefore has a mirror (and a complete lack of viewing through the taking lens). I'll leave the rest of the post to "different definitions".

redrockcoulee
18-Jan-2012, 07:32
A Hasselblad also has you viewing ground glass through a mirror but it would not be in my mind a view camera although perhaps if you removed the back and used the ground glass it could be considered as being used as a view camera. A Crown Graphic is a press camera. A Shen Hao is a field camera and a Sinar is a monorail. All three sub types seem to be covered in all the books about view cameras.

Seneca Improveds have rear swing but not front tilt, Butcher and Sons has front tilt but not rear swing. Are they view cameras or do they just look and operate like one? And if a camera's movement breaks does it cease being a view camera?

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2012, 07:37
Perhaps this is a topic better suited for the "philosophy of photographic equipment" forum. :)

I tend to agree with Dan Fromm, mostly, though.

John Kasaian
18-Jan-2012, 07:40
Its a press camera since it was a popular camera for newspapermen with no time for tripods.
Its a view camera because you can also view through the lens.
Any more questions? :)

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2012, 08:05
Any more questions? :)

Yes, just one more, "Is that Hasselblad?" :D

E. von Hoegh
18-Jan-2012, 08:07
If it's designed to be handheld, it's not a view camera.

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 08:29
There's plenty of view cameras that have no rear movements or only limited rear movements, and some have very limited front movements as well.

Like others I've always thought of view cameras as being cameras that focus directly onto a ground glass screen which is moved to allow the fitting of a plate.film holder.

Perhaps it's Graflex themselves who muddied the water as they gave the name Crown View to a wooden camera with about the same degree of movements as a Crown Graphic, although the later Graphic View's were monorails with full movements.

The Crown View is a typical US style large format camera and similar to many other cameras from Agfa Ansco's, Korona's, Kodak's etc.

Maybe it's the other terms that are more important when describing cameras, Press, Technical, Field, Monorail, Studio ect, they are all View cameras.

Ian

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 08:37
If it's designed to be handheld, it's not a view camera.

How do you work that one out ?

Technical cameras like MPPs, Linhofs, Toyos (45A), Super Graphics etc are all very definitely view cameras yet all can be used on a tripod or handheld.

Ian

Jay DeFehr
18-Jan-2012, 08:51
My own definition is that a view camera is one in which the image is viewed directly on a ground glass, meaning, nothing else in the light path, like mirrors, prisms, etc. In other words, the designation, view camera, refers only to a particular viewing system. So a Speed Graphic can be called a view camera, and if it has a RF, it can also be called a rangefinder. It could also be called a folding camera, a bellows camera, and a press camera, as all of these taxonomic descriptors apply.

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 08:55
My own definition is that a view camera is one in which the image is viewed directly on a ground glass, meaning, nothing else in the light path, like mirrors, prisms, etc. In other words, the designation, view camera, refers only to a particular viewing system. So a Speed Graphic can be called a view camera, and if it has a RF, it can also be called a rangefinder. It could also be called a folding camera, a bellows camera, and a press camera, as all of these taxonomic descriptors apply.

Add to that many people also call them plate cameras.

Ian

Drew Bedo
18-Jan-2012, 09:04
Why are we wasting time on this? Who cares what its called.

jnantz
18-Jan-2012, 09:05
http://historiccamera.com/
has ads photographs &c
if you go by what these cameras were called
historically you will see the manufacturers
had a distinction.

manhattan optical, rochester, conley and others
made cameras in the 1800s and early 1900s
that were nearly the same design as a speed graphic
or crown graphic or "press camera" and they called these
cameras " folding cameras. " view cameras
were advertised at the time and while they folded up ( sometimes )
they did not have a box the camera bed folded up into and a handled case.
another distinction was the folding cameras were portable
and could be bike mounted and view cameras required other "stuff."

(it also seems ) the folding cameras were 1 step above a box camera.
both were easy to use but the folding cameras had a way to focus the image ( not point and shoot )
and they came with a nicer lens ( rapid rectalinaer instead of a choked-down meniscus / wollaston ) ...
and while box cameras for 4x5 format had a tripod mount, they could easily be used handheld
and folding cameras seem to be the other way around, while they could always be used handheld
they seem to be better when used on a tripod.

the folks who used folding cameras were probably snobish and thought they
were more "serious" than the box camera crowd, just like today
there are always folks who use view cameras and think they are more "serious"
than press (folding) camera crowd ...

i don't make a distinction, to me folding or view or box, they are just ... cameras

Brian Ellis
18-Jan-2012, 09:20
One way fairly well-accepted way of classifying cameras that use sheet film is (or at least was) field camera, monorail or studio camera, press camera, and technical camera (a press camera with back movements). "View camera" was a vaguer term but generally meant a field camera or a monorail. Under this classification system the various Graphics are press cameras. If someone wants to call them view cameras they certainly can, there isn't to my knowledge a single uniformly accepted system of classification. But I think "press camera" is the more accurate term.

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 09:30
I guess we do like to argue!

Then there is the SLR 4x5 Graphic that D. Lange used...:D

http://www.shorpy.com/Dorothea-Lange

Check out her shoes -- look like Converse basketball shoes!

Gem Singer
18-Jan-2012, 09:48
See A.Adams, "The Camera" for a discussion of the various camera classifications.

He specifically puts the Graphic cameras in the press camera classification.

Personally, if a camera uses a ground glass for composing and focusing, takes sheet film, has movement capability, and is mounted on a tripod, it's a view camera.

To paraphrase, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck".

rdenney
18-Jan-2012, 09:48
I guess we do like to argue!

Then there is the SLR 4x5 Graphic that D. Lange used...:D

http://www.shorpy.com/Dorothea-Lange

Before Dan has a chance to do it, I'll point out that the Graflex SLR was called a Graflex because it was a reflex camera, while the name Graphic was used for the press cameras. I don't think the Graflex SLR was ever described as a Graphic by the manufacturer. My own speculation is that this distinction mattered at a time when Graflex and Graphic were model names when the company name was Folmer and Schwing (or the F&S Division of Kodak). Later, the company name change to Graflex, which, if my speculation is correct, charted a new nomenclature course. I don't remember the dates for sure, but I seem to recall that the Graflex company name appeared after the Graflex SLR ceased production.

Definitions are merely records of accepted meanings. I suspect most people believe a view camera is called such because it is used by viewing the image directly on a ground glass, and not through some intervening viewing system that would give it a different label. The box and folding consumer cameras of a century past seemed to all have viewfinders and some alternate form of focusing rather than using a directly viewed ground glass. Press cameras can be used like a view camera, just as some technical cameras can be used like a press camera (i.e., handheld, with a viewfinder and rangefinder focusing aid).

I also suspect that most people would believe a view camera is such because there is some independence between the front and rear standards, and the associated use of a bellows appears in several definitions I reviewed. That may be a more recent association, but, of course, definitions can change.

Rick "noting that when we use an archaic definition, we have to say so if we mean to communicate clearly" Denney

Kevin Crisp
18-Jan-2012, 09:51
I vote with those astute "who cares?" posters, but you might find this definition from McGraw Hill's technology encyclopedia interesting It would exclude quite a few cameras we all would consider view cameras.


(optics) A camera that can be focused at both front and back, with adjustments for tilts, swings, shifts, and rise and fall, to control the shape of the subject in the image; it has a ground glass on the back which enables the photographer to view the image to be recorded.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/view-camera#ixzz1jpUtinI7

E. von Hoegh
18-Jan-2012, 10:24
How do you work that one out ?

Technical cameras like MPPs, Linhofs, Toyos (45A), Super Graphics etc are all very definitely view cameras yet all can be used on a tripod or handheld.

Ian

I thought I made it clear...... maybe if you read it a few more times. Hint: "designed to be handheld"

Dan Fromm
18-Jan-2012, 10:45
Rick, Graflex' (Graflex, Inc. and predecessors) nomenclature confuses everyone.

Dan "there were no rules in Rochester and they were often broken" Fromm

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2012, 11:35
I'm not as confused as some... I don't believe Graflex Corp ever used the term Graflex in reference to their line of Graphic press cameras, except as a reference to their corporate name.

"Brian" I could be mistaken "Shaw"

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 11:44
I thought I made it clear...... maybe if you read it a few more times. Hint: "designed to be handheld"

But it also was designed to be used on a tripod (it has a tripod screwhole-thingy)...:D

I am not a duck, but I am ducking.....

(and my 6x7 roll film back for 4x5 has "Graflex" written on it...:D )

banjo
18-Jan-2012, 12:07
IN todays world they are NOT Presscamera any more!!! thats all digshit now days
yes they where called a Presscamera but what a Linhof Master Technika 4x5 ? as it to is a folding box camera!! as too a Horseman HF & as a 8x10 View Camera Korona don't have all the back movements
they a a folding camera, BUT so are Sinar Alpina 4x5 camera ! they are a folding box camera but so are 5x7 Seneca Folding Plate ! are they a field camera too!SO just
what are they if not a view

why be snob's about it as most of you use a tripod most of the time & use the ground glass with out using any movements anyway!!

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 12:15
The term "View camera" was used way back in the mid to late 1800's and covered early tailboard cameras as well as later field cameras. Early lenses were described and sold as Portrait or View as well.

The term view comes from landscape where we still use the term when we say what a view or look at that view etc.

People get hung up on terms, an early Watson tailboard camera was described as a field camera by the company because it was portable enough to be used in the landscape.

Now compared to modern LF cameras these early view / field cameras had almost no movements. A Speed or Crown Graphic has far more and is designed to be used on a tripod, it has 2 tripod mount points.

Ian

E. von Hoegh
18-Jan-2012, 12:26
But it also was designed to be used on a tripod (it has a tripod screwhole-thingy)...:D

I am not a duck, but I am ducking.....

(and my 6x7 roll film back for 4x5 has "Graflex" written on it...:D )

You can't use movements while holding the camera in your hands. My Nikon has groundglass and a tripod socket. Doesn't make it a view camera.

As I said, a camera that is designed to be hand held is not a view camera. The Linhof tech cameras can be used handheld, but they were not designed as a handheld camera.

My 6x7 rollfilm back says "Rollex" on it, but it doesn't tell time worth a damn. ;)

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 12:38
...why be snob's about it as most of you use a tripod most of the time & use the ground glass with out using any movements anyway!!

I always use movements -- it is just sometimes the proper amount of tilt (or swing, or the amount of rise/fall) I use in order to best manage the image is zero. :)

Jim Noel
18-Jan-2012, 12:42
It was designed as a Press Camera and remains so. It's movements are limited to centering the lens and making the lens plane parallel with the focal plane. These are not the movements necessary to be considered a view camera.

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2012, 12:43
INCREDIBLE. How much longer will this go on before someone does the inevitable and brings it ti a crashing end by invoking the name of H!tler... or worse, Wisner... or even worse, Fatali?

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 12:46
It was designed as a Press Camera and remains so. It's movements are limited to centering the lens and making the lens plane parallel with the focal plane. These are not the movements necessary to be considered a view camera.

Actually it has the most commonly used movement -- front tilt (both directions). One just has to drop the bed and use front rise to get all the front tilt one would ever need. For this reason they can function as good traveling LF view cameras. And they are nicely self-contained in their own box/case!

Brian -- go away...we are having fun here...;)

E. von Hoegh
18-Jan-2012, 12:47
I think even Hitler would agree with my definition. So there!

BrianShaw
18-Jan-2012, 13:04
Wow... that really worked. 15 minutes without a new post to this thread. WOW!

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 13:08
You can't use movements while holding the camera in your hands.


Really !!!! I do and the wire finder happens to move with the standard so is still usable.

I've been using a Crown Graphic and more recenrly a Super Graphic hand-held for the past 5 years and I use tilt and rise/fall where needed. When permitted I prefer to use a tripod.

Ian

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 13:09
Wow... that really worked. 15 minutes without a new post to this thread. WOW!

We have to eat :D

Ian

E. von Hoegh
18-Jan-2012, 13:14
Really !!!! I do and the wire finder happens to move with the standard so is still usable.

I've been using a Crown Graphic and more recenrly a Super Graphic hand-held for the past 5 years and I use tilt and rise/fall where needed. When permitted I prefer to use a tripod.

Ian

I've been using a Linhof, sometimes handheld, since 1987. Haven't had much success using the movements handheld; that wireframe finder doesn't show me what is sharp. Then, my standards may differ from yours.;)

Jay DeFehr
18-Jan-2012, 13:17
You can't use movements while holding the camera in your hands. My Nikon has groundglass and a tripod socket. Doesn't make it a view camera.

As I said, a camera that is designed to be hand held is not a view camera. The Linhof tech cameras can be used handheld, but they were not designed as a handheld camera.

My 6x7 rollfilm back says "Rollex" on it, but it doesn't tell time worth a damn. ;)

The view in view camera refers to the viewing system, and nothing else, and distinguishes this kind of viewing system from SLRs, TLRs, RFs, viewfinders, etc. That some view cameras have movements, bellows, tripod sockets, can be used handheld, or on a studio stand is incidental. Any camera that allows direct viewing of the image on a ground glass is by definition a view camera. It might also be a press camera, a field camera, a technical camera, a monorail camera, a studio camera, a tailboard camera, a folding camera, a box camera, or a million other descriptors that have nothing to do with its viewing system.

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 13:30
I've been using a Linhof, sometimes handheld, since 1987. Haven't had much success using the movements handheld; that wireframe finder doesn't show me what is sharp. Then, my standards may differ from yours.;)

I compose on the ground glass and also set up the movements and focus, the wire frame's only used for the exposure, so there's no loss of quality. It's relativelt easy once you get some experience.

When it comes to standards yes it was initially a steep learning curve to ensure that the hand held work is indistinguishable from similar work where a tripod's used but it's possible.

Ian

IanG
18-Jan-2012, 13:37
The view in view camera refers to the viewing system, and nothing else,

No it doesn't it initially refers to cameras that were portable enough to shoot landscapes or views.

It just happens that all early cameras were simple just a lens, ground glass back and focus mechanism and quite quickly simple movements.

Ian

Jay DeFehr
18-Jan-2012, 13:47
No it doesn't it initially refers to cameras that were portable enough to shoot landscapes or views.

It just happens that all early cameras were simple just a lens, ground glass back and focus mechanism and quite quickly simple movements.

Ian

I disagree. I think view camera is shortened from direct view camera, which refers to a specific viewing system, though field cameras might have been called view cameras, confusing the distinction. And cameras predating photography included mirrors in the light path to right the image.

TheDeardorffGuy
18-Jan-2012, 14:39
Actually a non FS Deardorff has swings. Tip the standard so the node of the lens is over the tripod hole. Pivot the camera on the tripod mount and swing the back in relation to your need of focus. FS with a non FS camera. This was the way Deardorff designed the first V8s. Thank goodness FS were added in 1950.



Yes and minty of 5x7s & 8x10 don't have any front movements!!! SO!!
a ground glass makes it a view camera AS not all Crown or speeds have
a rangerfinder!!

winterclock
18-Jan-2012, 18:02
According to E. M. Estabrooke writing in 1886, a portrait camera is used in the studio for portraits and a view camera is used in the field for viewing. His book shows several portrait cameras with movements and both types of cameras are focused on the ground glass. The difference seems to be in the weight of the cameras with portrait cameras being large and solid and using stands and view cameras being lighter with a view to being portable (weight with ground glass and single dry plate holder a mere 22 pounds!:eek: ).

Jay DeFehr
18-Jan-2012, 18:35
According to E. M. Estabrooke writing in 1886, a portrait camera is used in the studio for portraits and a view camera is used in the field for viewing. His book shows several portrait cameras with movements and both types of cameras are focused on the ground glass. The difference seems to be in the weight of the cameras with portrait cameras being large and solid and using stands and view cameras being lighter with a view to being portable (weight with ground glass and single dry plate holder a mere 22 pounds!:eek: ).

Lots of people have used lots of terms, no doubt. Cameras, as we all know, are combinatorial devices and can be configured in any number of ways, and used in a great number more ways. Defining a camera by the way it's used is hopeless, because no two people are likely to use it in exactly the same way. The taxonomy of cameras is complicated by the myriad ways cameras are configured, and cameras are referred to by a number of features; by the materials the camera is made from, by the film format, by the construction, by the intended use, by the location of the intended use, by the sensitive material used, and the list goes on, and includes the viewing system.

One can classify view cameras as cameras used to photograph "views", but that's a meaningless classification, because any camera can be used to photograph "views".

Classifying cameras by their viewing system is a long standing tradition, and is meaningful. A TLR doesn't become an SLR, depending on the way the camera is used, where it's used, or what it photographs.

Of course there's no reason to worry over it, as there's not much confusion about our cameras for most of us. If someone wants to insist a Speed Graphic is not a view camera, it doesn't prevent anyone from using one's Speed Graphic in any way one likes, even for photographing views!

Leigh
18-Jan-2012, 18:50
Any camera that allows direct viewing of the image on a ground glass is by definition a view camera.
Then my Hasselblad 500C/M is a view camera, n'est-ce pas?

It has a ground glass that fits on the back, in place of the film magazine, which permits viewing of the image at the film plane.

The image is inverted, just as it is on larger-format view cameras.

- Leigh

Jay DeFehr
18-Jan-2012, 19:12
Then my Hasselblad 500C/M is a view camera, n'est-ce pas?

It has a ground glass that fits on the back, in place of the film magazine, which permits viewing of the image at the film plane.

The image is inverted, just as it is on larger-format view cameras.

- Leigh

In which case it certainly could be called a direct view camera, when used in that configuration. Many cameras have primary and secondary viewing systems. The Speed Graphic comes to mind! And lots of old folders had ground glass screens, and little reflex viewers with focus scales. If you add the invisible direct in front of the term view camera, you'll never be confused again.

Leigh
18-Jan-2012, 19:18
If you add the invisible direct in front of the term view camera, you'll never be confused again.
Of course, if you add invisible text to any description you can make it mean whatever you want.

I'm not the one who's confused. Look in the mirror.

- Leigh

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 19:50
Exceptions do not prove or disprove the general rule.

Leigh
18-Jan-2012, 19:54
Quite the contrary.

A counter-example disproves any hypothesis.

- Leigh

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 19:57
Sorry, I did not know we were creating a General Theory of Photography here...:D

Thebes
18-Jan-2012, 20:28
If you can look through a ground glass held at the imagine plane to focus it, its a view camera. If you can look through a rangefinder to focus, its a rangefinder camera. Many press and technical cameras are both and some of those aren't even large format.

rdenney
18-Jan-2012, 20:59
Then my Hasselblad 500C/M is a view camera, n'est-ce pas?

It has a ground glass that fits on the back, in place of the film magazine, which permits viewing of the image at the film plane.

The image is inverted, just as it is on larger-format view cameras.

- Leigh

So, you can use a 'blad like a view camera. Now, is that common enough, or central enough to the way that camera works, to use it as an example of what a term means?

Rick "who can put a tilt-shift lens on a Kiev 88 with that same ground-glass back" Denney

Leigh
18-Jan-2012, 21:04
Now, is that common enough, or central enough to the way that camera works, to use it as an example of what a term means?
That is standard usage for the Super-Wide, and optional for the interchangeable-lens bodies.

My point is that I disagree with the proposed definition, which is based solely on the presence of a ground glass.

- Leigh

rdenney
18-Jan-2012, 21:04
Exceptions do not prove or disprove the general rule.

The problem that we always run into when someone tries to argue about definitions is assuming that a definition is a rule. It's not a rule. It's a record that changes over time, which is why whole teams of language academics spend their lives determining what words should be in a dictionary, and what their definitions should be, and then do it all again with each new revision.

When we think of a definition as a record, we lose the temptation to think of exceptions as violating a rule. Those exceptions are just outside the common meaning, and the common meaning is what dictionaries are about.

Rick "who can concoct a camera that has all the attributes of a view camera but that most would not want to call a view camera" Denney

rdenney
18-Jan-2012, 21:06
That is standard usage for the Super-Wide, and optional for the interchangeable-lens bodies.

My point is that I disagree with the proposed definition, which is based solely on the presence of a ground glass.

Let's say I disagree with your disagreement. So, now where do we go from there?

Rick "pistols at dawn?" Denney

(Let's try to understand what most people mean, not what we want it to mean.)

Leigh
18-Jan-2012, 21:08
The subject of this thread is to determine what is or is not a "view camera".

That does rather hinge on the definition of the term, does it not?

The options appear to be:

1) Movements - View cameras have them, other cameras do not.

2) Ground glass - View cameras have it, other cameras (excluding rangefinders) also have it.

- Leigh

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 21:20
...When we think of a definition as a record, we lose the temptation to think of exceptions as violating a rule. Those exceptions are just outside the common meaning, and the common meaning is what dictionaries are about.

Thanks Rick, nice to know that common sense is not totally dead!

John Kasaian
18-Jan-2012, 21:27
I think
if a camera looks
like the kind you'd see
in old Looney Tunes
Its a View Camera
:D

rdenney
18-Jan-2012, 21:30
The subject of this thread is to determine what is or is not a "view camera".

That does rather hinge on the definition of the term, does it not?

- Leigh

Assuming that an authoritative definition does not exist (which is not a bad assumption, based on my quick review of dictionaries, most of which don't define "view camera" at all), then we have to concoct one if we care to answer the question. When we do, we should focus on the common meaning to most people, the way lexicographers would.

Most of us seem to think that "view camera" means direct viewing on a ground glass, and maybe with some independence of the front and rear standards. As I said before, I can put a tilt-shift lens on a Kiev 88 with a Hasselblad ground-glass back (I'm not theorizing--all those bits are in my closet upstairs), which has the attributes most people attach to the term "view camera". But most wouldn't want to call that concoction a view camera, because that is too odd an example to drive a definition. The SWC is less odd, but not that much less odd, and most of the SWC's I've seen have a big viewfinder fitted to them. Is a Cambo Wide a view camera if it has such a viewfinder? If it doesn't?

Examples abound of cameras that could be made to operate like cameras of fundamentally different types. But they should not drive the definition.

Here is a definition I would propose, that seems to fit with what most people think it means: a camera whose user views the image on a ground glass that is located at the position of the film, and then replaced by the film for the actual exposure. Most view cameras also possess a flexible connection between the film holder and lens.

That separates it from reflex cameras, which put the ground glass somewhere else, or from viewfinder cameras that don't use a ground glass at all. A Speed Graphic can be used like a view camera, and so can your Hasselblad, even without that flexible connection. But it would be common enough with the Graphic to drive the definition, and uncommon enough with the 'blad not to.

Rick "making the point that definitions are not carved by the finger of God" Denney

TheDeardorffGuy
18-Jan-2012, 21:33
Wheww..............Lots of old smelly D76 being thrown around. I am still of the mind that a minimum of front swing both V and H and Rear Swing V and H and ground glass make a view camera. Early tailboard cameras like my full plate 1862 Hare do not have movements at all. They simply open and you take the cap off to focus. That was NORMAL then. It was in the day a customer came into the shop and decided what SIZE picture they wanted and the photographer pulled that one off the shelf and used it. That was the default method of focusing. Its not a view camera. It is a large format camera but then it was just a camera since there was no miniature cameras in wide use to compare to. Those four minimum Movements I mentioned above make it a view camera IMHO. I believe Folmer and Schwing added the front tilt to assist the photographer to get sharper negs for group photos. They did not do anything with the rear.

rdenney
18-Jan-2012, 21:48
Wheww..............Lots of old smelly D76 being thrown around. I am still of the mind that a minimum of front swing both V and H and Rear Swing V and H and ground glass make a view camera. Early tailboard cameras like my full plate 1862 Hare do not have movements at all. They simply open and you take the cap off to focus. That was NORMAL then. It was in the day a customer came into the shop and decided what SIZE picture they wanted and the photographer pulled that one off the shelf and used it. That was the default method of focusing. Its not a view camera. It is a large format camera but then it was just a camera since there was no miniature cameras in wide use to compare to. Those four minimum Movements I mentioned above make it a view camera IMHO. I believe Folmer and Schwing added the front tilt to assist the photographer to get sharper negs for group photos. They did not do anything with the rear.

Ken, when you base a definition on what you want something to mean, rather than what most people think it means, you run two risks: 1.) you communicate only with yourself, and 2.) you give the impression you have a motivation other than clear communication.

This is a fairly innocuous definition to argue about. But we've had real wars on the definition of photograph, and those trying to define it this way and that are often trying to exclude whatever technology they happen to despise so that it becomes invalidated by definition rather than by deliberation. I doubt that's your motive, but it's a reasonable suspicion.

I suspect if you polled the non-photographic general public, and asked them to visualize a view camera, they would visualize a camera with a bellows attachment between front and rear, and a photographer covered up by a dark cloth. They wouldn't know or care whether the format was large or small. But a camera that fits with that visualization is used by viewing a ground glass that is temporarily placed at the film location, and that has a flexible connection between front and rear. They would neither know nor care what that connection can do--that drives other definitions, it seems to me.

A Speed Graphic provides a ground glass at the film location and a hood to view it, and it connects the lens to the film using a bellows. I think if you held up a Speed Graphic to a non-photographer and asked if it looked like a view camera, they would say yes, if they had an opinion at all. I don't think they would care about the functional differences between a Speed Graphic and a given model of a Deardorff. I'm not even sure those differences would be obvious to them.

Rick "avoiding vacuous distinctions" Denney

Vaughn
18-Jan-2012, 21:53
Good, then my Gowland PocketView qualifies to be a view camera (its in the name, isn't it?!) It is just lacking rear rise/fall and shift.

Unfortunately, my Eastman View No 2 (5x7) does not, as it does not have swing or tilt on the front (but it does both on the rear, as well as front rise/fall).

Rick -- maybe next we can discuss what makes a negative LF? :eek:

Drew Bedo
19-Jan-2012, 06:11
Into what classification would the Gowland 4x5 cameras be put . . .the ones that look like a Mamya 220, or Roliflex?

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 06:29
Into what classification would the Gowland 4x5 cameras be put . . .the ones that look like a Mamya 220, or Roliflex?

They are twin-lens reflex cameras, pretty clearly. Gowland's idea was that the film would be ready for exposure while using the viewing system to judge the right time to release the shutter. That's quite different from a view camera, where the ground glass is placed at the film location for viewing, and then replaced by film.

Rick "it's not about the format size" Denney

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 06:30
Rick -- maybe next we can discuss what makes a negative LF? :eek:

Yes. Here's the normal process: Calculate the area of whatever film I insist on including because I use that size myself, and subtract one unit.

Rick "death by definition" Denney

BrianShaw
19-Jan-2012, 07:23
I suspect if you polled the non-photographic general public, and asked them to visualize a view camera, they would visualize a camera with a bellows attachment between front and rear, and a photographer covered up by a dark cloth. They wouldn't know or care whether the format was large or small. But a camera that fits with that visualization is used by viewing a ground glass that is temporarily placed at the film location, and that has a flexible connection between front and rear. They would neither know nor care what that connection can do--that drives other definitions, it seems to me.

I think the bolded part is what would really happen if that question was asked.

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 08:24
I think the bolded part is what would really happen if that question was asked.

No doubt. But if I want to invalidate a question, I just ignore it.

Rick "who doesn't mind learning useless things" Denney

John Kasaian
19-Jan-2012, 08:31
You guys say what you want, I'm sticking with the Looney Tunes criterion.

Jay DeFehr
19-Jan-2012, 08:52
Of course, if you add invisible text to any description you can make it mean whatever you want.

I'm not the one who's confused. Look in the mirror.

- Leigh

Leigh, I assume you're not a linguist, so I won't go into the intricacies of invisible phrase structure, but suffice it to say, it's integral to English grammar. Beyond that, nomenclature craves brevity, so that a telephone becomes a phone (and an intelligent telephone becomes an iPhone) a printing press becomes a press (so we don't have to shout, "Stop the printing presses!"), and so on, ad infinitum.

But I really don't believe you're so completely ignorant of grammatical structure that you believe your objection has merit; it's just the only argument you could make, though it isn't an argument at all.

What makes more sense; that a description of a camera viewing system is used to refer to the camera itself, as in an SLR, a TLR, a rangefinder, a viewfinder, etc., and that the description, direct view camera was shortened to view camera, or that the term view camera implies a laundry list of features not specifically described by either part of the term?

That cameras are often referred to by their viewing systems should come as no surprise, given the extent to which the viewing system influences the overall design and use of the camera, but there are other features used to refer to cameras as well, and which a referer prefers might depend more on context than anything else. If one is discussing view cameras, it's not very useful to compare one view camera to another on that basis, but studio/field distinctions, or rail/flatbed, or press/technical, wood/metal, etc., are meaningful.

In short, the term view camera is not sufficiently precise to refer to a category of cameras by any feature other than their common viewing system.

Jay DeFehr
19-Jan-2012, 08:56
The subject of this thread is to determine what is or is not a "view camera".

That does rather hinge on the definition of the term, does it not?

The options appear to be:

1) Movements - View cameras have them, other cameras do not.

2) Ground glass - View cameras have it, other cameras (excluding rangefinders) also have it.

- Leigh

You've conveniently (or ignorantly) left out:

3) Viewing system - View cameras use a direct view system, other cameras use something else.

BrianShaw
19-Jan-2012, 08:57
No doubt. But if I want to invalidate a question, I just ignore it.

Rick "who doesn't mind learning useless things" Denney

I do not understand this reply. What do you mean? Invalidate what question?

Dan Fromm
19-Jan-2012, 09:29
Broken record time: who cares?

Let the supreme arbiter decree that a Speed Graphic is or isn't a view camera. Will the decree change anyone's behavior?

Jay DeFehr
19-Jan-2012, 09:58
Here is a definition I would propose, that seems to fit with what most people think it means: a camera whose user views the image on a ground glass that is located at the position of the film, and then replaced by the film for the actual exposure. Most view cameras also possess a flexible connection between the film holder and lens.

That separates it from reflex cameras, which put the ground glass somewhere else, or from viewfinder cameras that don't use a ground glass at all. A Speed Graphic can be used like a view camera, and so can your Hasselblad, even without that flexible connection. But it would be common enough with the Graphic to drive the definition, and uncommon enough with the 'blad not to.

Rick "making the point that definitions are not carved by the finger of God" Denney

Very sensible approach, Rick. I think there are some loose threads in this discussion due to the following distinctions not being clearly (for the most part) articulated:

The difference between a definition and common usage-- they are separate, but related, and account for definitions like, "a camera used to photograph views". This is a chicken and egg problem. Either the term view camera really did originate with the studio/field distinction, and field photography was referred to as view photography instead of field, landscape or nature photography, and the chosen term, view, coincidentally described the camera's viewing system.... or..... the term view was applied to a camera's use instead of it's most definitive system by laypersons. The problem with the latter is that studio and portrait cameras were also referred to as view cameras.

Camera v viewing system-- a camera is conglomeration of systems and features, intended for various uses, without very distinct boundaries between categories, and a camera is often referred to by one or more of its systems or features, or uses. If we want to define a camera based on a reference to a system or feature or usage, the definition necessarily becomes; a camera with X system or feature, or used for X. If we understand the term view camera to refer to a camera with a particular viewing system, and not as a definition of the camera itself, it explains why we are reluctant to define a camera by an obviously secondary viewing system, such as your Hassy configured for direct viewing. As regards the Speed Graphic, the question as to which system is the primary one, and which the secondary, is not so clear cut, and is determined by the user, which explains why only some of us are ready to define a Speed Graphic as a view camera, and why whether we call it a view camera or not has nothing to do with its also being a press camera.

So I think your definition is as good as we're likely to get, as it refers to the viewing system as the basis for the definition, and allows for common usage in very broad terms by the qualifier, "most". I would offer the following variation:

A view camera is one in which the projected image is viewed directly at the sensor plane.

Note that neither of our versions applies to a camera in which a digital sensor replaces the ground glass at the sensor plane, and the image is viewed on a laptop. Your version doesn't allow for the use of digital media at all! So when digital sensors/displays replace film/ground glasses the view part of view camera will be a vestigial reference to an extinct viewing system. I wonder what they'll confabulate to explain the term?

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 10:00
I do not understand this reply. What do you mean? Invalidate what question?

The OP's question, of course. Isn't that what you intended when you implied nobody cared?

Rick "who skips past a lot of questions that don't interest him" Denney

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 10:03
Broken record time: who cares?

Let the supreme arbiter decree that a Speed Graphic is or isn't a view camera. Will the decree change anyone's behavior?

Dan, obviously some of us don't mind chasing this rabbit down a hole. That 1.) does not mean we think it's particularly important, and 2.) doesn't mean that you have to read the discussion.

Rick "thinking the broken record is self-refuting" Denney

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 10:07
I wonder what they'll confabulate to explain the term?

If I said I didn't care, lightning would strike down at this point.

Rick "Ha!" Denney

E. von Hoegh
19-Jan-2012, 10:07
You've conveniently (or ignorantly) left out:

3) Viewing system - View cameras use a direct view system, other cameras use something else.

OK, so the Compass camera is a view camera.:rolleyes:

redrockcoulee
19-Jan-2012, 10:13
Rick: One can also mount an entire Hasselblad onto the back of a "view" camera and use the reflex system for focusing or viewing. Then it would not be view camera but really the large format camera is still a view camera just being used or set up for an alternative method.



I think no matter how one defines a camera type one would use how any partiular camera is normally used. If I used the ground glass back on my 500 C/M ( I think I do have one at home by the way) I would be using the camera like a view camera but it still would be a SLR. If I hold my Rolleichord without looking through the finder to take the photo it is still a TLR even if I am not looking through the reflex part of it.

From the definition of being a camera for taking photos of views instead of portraits then would not many monorails fail to be a view camera? And one can take portraits with a field camera in a studio. Those definitions do not seem to make sense in the modern (20th Century and newer) world.

1750Shooter
19-Jan-2012, 10:15
Personally, I don't think a camera that doesn't use wet plates that you develop in a horse-drawn wagon is a view camera!

Jay DeFehr
19-Jan-2012, 10:24
OK, so the Compass camera is a view camera.:rolleyes:

What's a compass camera?

BradS
19-Jan-2012, 10:27
From personal experience I can tell you that when a non-photographer sees a speed graphic out in the wild, the brave will ask something like:

1) can you get film for that?
2) how many mega pixels is that?
3) is that a black and white camera?
4) why would you use that?
5) I have a canon / nikon (name a model) DSLR...blah, blah, blah....
6) is that a hassleblad?
7) you cannot take pictures here/

I have never, ever been asked..."hey, is that a view camera?" nor has anybody asked if it were a press camera...well except the local newpaper photog who recognized that it was indeed a camera and wanted to see how it worked.

cowanw
19-Jan-2012, 10:49
The ICP encyclopedia specifies a view camera has a front standard, a rear standard, a bellows and a rail / bed to move the standards AND viewing is done through the ground glass. No mention of movements as necessary
Other than the most persistant opinion here, what would we accept as an authority?

BrianShaw
19-Jan-2012, 11:00
The OP's question, of course. Isn't that what you intended when you implied nobody cared?

Rick "who skips past a lot of questions that don't interest him" "WhateverThatMeans" Denney

Well, OK, but I don't think I was invalidating the OPs question or implying anything; just stating my opinion to something that came up as the discussion progressed. I don't think most of the general population cares, nor cares to even think about this particular topic. I don't think it is a particularly useful question other than to think about it because it comes up over and over again by the few who might really care. But that doesn't have anything to do with assumptions about my level of interest in philospohical question such as this.

E. von Hoegh
19-Jan-2012, 11:01
What's a compass camera?

A view camera, by your definition.



http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Compass

rdenney
19-Jan-2012, 11:40
I don't think most of the general population cares, nor cares to even think about this particular topic.

Probably true for about 80% of the contents of a good dictionary. But every one of those words means something to someone, and committees routinely consider them all as a matter of professional interest.

Of course, the question for the general public is not "what is this?", upon showing them a Speed Graphic. The question is, "what do you think of when I use the term 'view camera'". Sure, probably "I don't know" will be the most common answer. But for those who are prepared to visualize anything (who I suspect will be over-represented by gray hair), they would visualize a silhouette of a photographer under a dark cloth, with a jagged bellows line across the top to a lens standard. A Speed Graphic would fit that silhouette, it seems to me.

As to the question of what is authoritative? Dictionaries generally can either assert authority or demonstrate it. The Oxford English Dictionary, more than any other, demonstrates their authority, by providing quotes from literature demonstrating the meaning of the word in question. That tells me that those Oxford dons believe that the meaning of a word is established by how it is used in practice, not merely by what those dons think. They don't list "view camera", though--I looked. They are apparently satisfied with "view" and "camera".

I have this feeling that those committees who oversee dictionary entries have discussions a lot like what we are having, with their ammunition coming from their store of examples. They probably end up having to just take a vote and live with it at times, heh.

Rick "noting that the Compass camera's primary viewing system is a rangefinder:D " Denney

Mike Anderson
19-Jan-2012, 11:44
...
Rick "noting that the Compass camera's primary viewing system is a rangefinder:D " Denney

but if the rangefinder was broken...;)

Jay DeFehr
19-Jan-2012, 11:48
A view camera, by your definition.



http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Compass

Wow! Very cool! But, as I think I've made it abundantly clear by now, I consider the term view camera to refer to a camera having a particular viewing system as its primary viewing system. The Compass is described in the linked article as follows:


It is a rectangular aluminium-bodied rangefinder camera.....The Compass is extraordinarily well-equipped for such a small package; it has two optical viewfinders, one at a right-angle, a ground glass focusing screen with a folding loupe,.....

While you could legitimately say the Compass Camera is a camera that includes a direct viewing system, it's another thing to say it is its primary viewing system, and referring to a camera by a secondary or auxiliary viewing system doesn't make much sense, because the term view camera (short for direct view camera) is a reference, not a definition, and it refers to a viewing system in the same way the article refers to the compass as a rangefinder camera.

And besides, what's the best competing theory?

BrianShaw
19-Jan-2012, 11:48
The question is, "what do you think of when I use the term 'view camera'". Sure, probably "I don't know" will be the most common answer.

Sure. I suppose that is a lot more polite than "I don't care" or "I don't care to know".

cyrus
19-Jan-2012, 11:57
I don't think movements are part of a definition of a view camera - plenty of older cameras didn't have movements and were just two standards with a bellows between them

Jay DeFehr
19-Jan-2012, 11:59
Originally Posted by rdenney
The question is, "what do you think of when I use the term 'view camera'". Sure, probably "I don't know" will be the most common answer.


Originally posted by BrianShaw:
Sure. I suppose that is a lot more polite than "I don't care" or "I don't care to know".

I'm guessing the most common answer would be, "What's a view camera?":D

BrianShaw
19-Jan-2012, 12:00
I'm guessing the most common answer would be, "What's a view camera?":D

... and that's how threads like this originate!

banjo
19-Jan-2012, 12:17
as to the compass I don't think its a view camera as to
"The ICP encyclopedia specifies a view camera has a front standard, a rear standard, a bellows and a rail / bed to move the standards AND viewing is done through the ground glass."
your compass don't have a bellows
like wise a Hasselblad that was made to use a reflex camera not the ground glass is an Optional accessorie & no bellows!
like wise in 1949 Graflex add for the new Century Grafphic list the Rangerfinder as an
Optional accessorie make the ground glass as the way to fouces
now I have been looking at old adds for Speed Graphic & have not seen any listed as a press they are listed by Graflex as a Commercial Camera!!
and the first Crown Graphic was called a Graphic Crown View

Dan Fromm
19-Jan-2012, 12:55
the first Crown Graphic was called a Graphic Crown View

banjo, I think you've confused the 4x5 Crown View camera (see the adverts in the very back of The Bible, first edition) with the Pacemaker Crown Graphic, a short-bodied Pacemaker Speed Graphic with no focal plane shutter.

winterclock
19-Jan-2012, 17:20
So in answer to the OP question if we use the ICP definition no it isn't because speed graphics don't have a rear standard, if we use Rick Denny's definition yes it is. Definitively maybe!
Maybe someone should start a poll on this.

Personally I think it is, but then I get my definition from 1886 when they had advanced to dry plates, thank you.:D

BTMarcais
19-Jan-2012, 17:50
I can't believe I read this whole post.

My 2 cents, if anyone besides me cares....

It's a press camera.
Which is a TYPE of view camera.
Which has less movements than some OTHER types of view cameras.

Done.

-Brian


(notice no one is arguing whether a graflex RB, Hasselblad 501C, Nikon F, and Canon 1DX are all SLR's?)

ic-racer
19-Jan-2012, 17:58
It has a ground glass viewfinder, but that alone may not make it a "View Camera."


view camera 
noun
a camera equipped with a lens mount and film holder that can be raised or set at an angle, a bellows that can be additionally extended, and a back that has a ground glass for focusing, used especially for portraits and landscapes. -- from Dictionary.com

If you look at Ansel Adams' "The Camera" you will see the chapter on "Large-Format Camera Types" is broken down into sub-chapters called "View Cameras," "Press Cameras," and "Field Cameras."