New (to me) Eastman 2-D -- What Now?

[folville]

Hi all,

I just came upon an Eastman 2-D. It was my great-grandfather's, and it's in great shape. I've never shot large format before, so what do I need to know?

It's a full suitcase-style kit with tripod, film holders, flash, etc. It's a 5x7 with a Wollensak Velostigmat Series II F4.5 Focus 7 1/4" (see image No. 3 below) and a Wollensak Velostigmat Series III Wide Angle F9.5 (image No. 4 below).

The 7 1/4" lens doesn't have the same sort of shutter cock selector switch as the wide angle lens. It doesn't appear to be broken off or missing, rather it looks like it never had one. What am I missing, and where can I read about the system?

Thanks for any help, and I can't wait to post some photos. Unless, of course, there's some consensus this should be a show piece due to its age and pristine condition.

Photos:
1.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6779677967_bbc469c2c5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6779677967/)

2.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7028/6779678899_1dbbcb24ef_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6779678899/)

3.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6779678349_f0688c2ebe_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6779678349/)

4.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6779671999_d6b039dbd7_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6779671999/)

[chassis]

Congratulations, really nice looking camera. There are lots of guys here who will give you info about what you have. After checking it out, I would set a goal of using it.

[folville]

Thanks! I should also say I came into a Rochester 8x10 (no photos of it) without lenses. The glass had a fair bit of mold. How should I take care of that?

[John Kasaian]

Thanks! I should also say I came into a Rochester 8x10 (no photos of it) without lenses. The glass had a fair bit of mold. How should I take care of that?

Where is the mold? On the ground glass?

Thats sure a beautiful 2d! Congrats

[folville]

The Rochester has mold on the ground glass, but otherwise seems ok. (I haven't gotten a good look at it yet.) The 2-D looks clean all around, though. :)

[LynnRB]

Best looking 2D I have ever seen. The shutter is self cocking when you press the release.

[LynnRB]

These are prewar lens, so if the camera is the same age, it is more remarkable for the fine condition of this camera.
5X7 is a great format, same ratio as 35mm. Contact prints from 5x7 negatives display nicely without enlargement.

[ic-racer]

Nice camera. You will need to check the shutters (check by ear is usually good enough). The bellows needs to be checked for light leaks. Look at the back and make sure it seals against the film holders. The film holders should be checked for light leaks (you can use paper for that, as it is less expensive than film).
Do you have a tripod and exposure meter and dark cloth? Once you get those you are ready to start shooting.

That camera should take standard modern plastic film holders, so if the ones you have are shot, you can get new ones.

[Vaughn]

Congrats!

Ground glass can be cleaned in dish soap -- no abrasives, of course.

"Show piece" -- something that does not work, but looks good. Otherwise work it (and the 8x10, too!)

If you decide you don't want to use it, save it for your kids/grandkids (and stash a box or two of each size film in your freezer for them to use...just in case).

My 5x7 is similar -- "Eastman View No 2". Don't use it a whole bunch as I usually use 8x10.

[Louis Pacilla]

The 7 1/4" lens doesn't have the same sort of shutter cock selector switch as the wide angle lens. It doesn't appear to be broken off or missing, rather it looks like it never had one. What am I missing, and where can I read about the system?



3.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6779678349_f0688c2ebe_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6779678349/)

4.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6779671999_d6b039dbd7_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6779671999/)

The reason the shutters look different is one is a Betax #3 and the wide angle is in a Betax #2.

They are both self cocking but the #3 has a "rim set". While the smaller #2 has a "Tab set".

The Betax #2-The little chrome tab pointer by the shutter speed marks can be moved with a finger tip to different speeds on the #2 .

The Betax #3-You turn the entire Chrome/nickel dial on the #3 and line up the mark on the dial w/ desired shutter speed

I hope this makes a little sense to you.

Beautiful 5x7 2d. have fun with it and welcome.

[folville]

Thanks for all the pointers and the warm welcome, everyone! Now that I know how the Betax No. 3 shutter works, I've been able to test it by ear, and it seem pretty accurate. As for paper to test for light leaks, does anyone have any recommendations?

[Oren Grad]

Welcome! The Eastman No. 2 is wonderfully quick and easy to set up and use. You can store it with a lens mounted - then you can just pop it on a tripod, fold down the front rail, rack out the front standard and you're ready to go! I have one in whole plate (6.5x8.5) format.

As for paper to test for light leaks, assuming you don't currently have a darkroom set up and different papers on hand, just buy the smallest pack of the cheapest RC paper you can find. For example, 25 sheets of Adorama's house-brand 5x7 glossy variable contrast paper is only $5.99, though you have to take shipping cost into account if you're not ordering anything else with it.

[Louis Pacilla]

Thanks for all the pointers and the warm welcome, everyone! Now that I know how the Betax No. 3 shutter works, I've been able to test it by ear, and it seem pretty accurate. As for paper to test for light leaks, does anyone have any recommendations?

You can buy 5x7 film and paper & chemistry at Freestyle. They totally support analog photography.

There are other photographic supply houses that carry analog supplies like B&H and Mid West Photo among others.

Here's Freestyles link
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/

BTW- By the looks of how well your grandfather treated his 2d, I would bet your bellows will prove to be light tight.

[Alan Gales]

Beautiful camera.

I would shoot it. In my opinion you will get a whole lot more enjoyment out of showing everyone the spectacular photographs you made using great-granddad's camera then just putting it on a shelf to collect dust. :)

[Jim Jones]

Check for light leaks in a dark room with a light bulb inside the camera with the bellows extended. If no light leaks out, you might bypass testing with paper or film.

[folville]

Ok, all, thanks so far for all the advice and tips. I've determined there are no light leaks in the bellows, and the film holders appear good as well. I'm getting ready to try this in the field now, but I've also got some other exciting news.

Today I found a Wollensak that I believe goes with the 8x10 I found earlier (which has mold/fungus on the glass but is otherwise clean). Can anyone help identify it and explain the markings along the bottom? There are two rows of apertures that seem to run in opposite directions. I'm also not sure what the focal length is. I can, however, happily report that the shutter timing sounds good. :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7064/6866617509_8b1913d137_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6866617509/)

[Vaughn]

What you have there is a "convertible lens". By screwing off the front of the lens, you get a lens that is longer than when you have both front and back of the lens together.

When using both parts of the lens, it would be a 11.75" lens and you use that scale. Without the front element, you have a longer 23.5" lens and you would use the scale marked for that.

The question is, and hopefully answered by someone more knowledgable -- is that the scales do not seem to be marked with the present-day f/stops. There are several different systems that have been used in the past.

A quick google seems to show me that your lens is marked in the old US System, what follows is the f/stops we use now : the equivelent US System:

5.6 : 2
8 : 4
11 : 8
16 : 16
22 : 32
32 : 64
45 : 128
64 : 256

vaughn

[folville]

What you have there is a "convertible lens". By screwing off the front of the lens, you get a lens that is longer than when you have both front and back of the lens together.

When using both parts of the lens, it would be a 11.75" lens and you use that scale. Without the front element, you have a longer 23.5" lens and you would use the scale marked for that.

The question is, and hopefully answered by someone more knowledgable -- is that the scales do not seem to be marked with the present-day f/stops. There are several different systems that have been used in the past.

vaughn

Ah, a convertible lens. I guess I forgot about those altogether. Thanks for the info, and I can't wait to post some photos made with the gear, not of it!

*edit: and I've discovered that I just need to look around the barrel in a little better light, because now I can see it's the same Versar Series IV F-6 seen here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=57215

[Vaughn]

What I am not 100% sure of is which half of the lens makes it a convertible. Does one just remove the front lens, or does one remove both and put the front on the back, or just remove the back? (I doubt if one would remove both and put the back on the front.)

Vaughn

[folville]

I just gave it a whirl, and the frontmost element does screw off. Whether there's more to it than that, I have no idea. (There is only one other element/group, and that's all the way at the back.)

And thanks for the aperture conversion table. That really helps make sense of the thing.

[Vaughn]

If you can find something at infinity to focus on, focus with only the back lens -- the distance from the lens to the film plane should be about 23.5 inches.

[folville]

If you can find something at infinity to focus on, focus with only the back lens -- the distance from the lens to the film plane should be about 23.5 inches.

I'll try that as soon as I get the ground glass cleaned of fungus/mold. I'll report back when I do.

[Leonard Robertson]

I believe what you have is a convertible, as Vaughn said, but a double-convertible, not the more commonly talked about triple-convertible. With a double, both front and rear lenses/cells are the same focal length, in your case 23 1/2". Used together, they give an 11 3/4" focal length. So either front or rear cell used alone should be the same. The only reference I have at hand on which side of the shutter the single cell should be used on is an instruction book for a #8 Cirkut Outfit. The basic lens for these Cirkuts was a double-convertible, although they are more commonly seen with the optional Turner-Reich triple-convertible (front and rear lenses are different focal lengths, giving three FL possibilities, thus triple-convertible). The i.b. says to use the single cell in front of the shutter so you don't need as much bellows draw. They don't say so, but I would imagine it helps keep dust out of the shutter too. I do seem to recall there is some optical reason for using it behind the lens. Maybe some else knows something about that. Could be a case of not making much difference to the negative where the single cell is placed. Beautiful lens and shutter you have!

That does look like the US system of apertures. If you are ever out in the wild without the conversion table, just remember f/16 is the same in both systems, then you can count stops either direction from there to get the "modern" f-stop equivalent .

Len

[Lynn Jones]

Thanks Louis,

you are exactly right.

Lynn

[folville]

Thanks for the detailed info, Louis! I cleaned and polished everything over the weekend, and I'll get my first frames run through at least one of the systems this weekend.

[folville]

After much ado, and piecing together a makeshift lab from scratch, I've finally processed my first few frames from the Eastman 2D. I've scanned only at a low resolution, but the negatives are crisp, and the lens seems good, notwithstanding a little glow around highlights. Needless to say, I'm pleased so far.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7049/6843540586_8e72e2056b_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iblarson/6843540586/)

Obviously I didn't have all the movements squared for this frame the way I should have, but opening tipoff happens only once, and I wasn't going to miss it.

[Ken Lee]

Oh yeah. Now we're talking.

Aren't Velostigmat portrait lenses ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would explain the halos around the high values. People pay good money to get that effect. It was probably a portrait camera. My 5x7 2D was.

5x7 is so large that with even the most humble modern normal lens, you'll get remarkable quality: 11x14 prints and larger, that are very similar to contact prints - with velvety tones and nasty sharpness. Even scanning at 1600 spi with a consumer-grade Epson, you're making 82 Megapixel images.

The 2D has the rigidity and bellows draw of a modern metal monorail camera, with the weight and size of a folder. Those 1920's designers were no fools. I actually have 2 of these cameras.

[Louis Pacilla]

Oh yeah. Now we're talking.

Aren't Velostigmat portrait lenses ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would explain the halos around the high values.



Hey Ken.


Not Really. Neither of the OPs Velostigmats are dedicated Portrait lenses. The OPs original post says he has a 7 1/2" series II and a 4.3" Series III wide angle. Neither would be considered a pure Portrait lens. But still non coated older glass certainly has a look.

Here's Wollensaks official say on the matter.


BTW- A very nice 1st go at large format image making. Which Velostigmat did you use on the posted photo, the 7 1/2" Series II?

[Ken Lee]

You are right - Thank you for the correction. :cool:

[folville]

Thanks, guys. This was the 7 1/2" series II. Even if it isn't a purpose-made portrait lens, I suppose its dreamy rendering (a little something like the Leica glow) would be a boon to portraiture. Now that I know everything works all right, I'll have to line up some model sessions.

[Keith Fleming]

I beleive the lens in the Regular shutter is a Wollensak Versar--though it might be re-badged as a Conley or other brand name. Wide open, these can be very soft, especially if you use only the rear lens cell. That's my experience with a junker Conley of the same size--with the junker part being the shutter. My wife liked the effect in her portrait.

[Louis Pacilla]

I beleive the lens in the Regular shutter is a Wollensak Versar--though it might be re-badged as a Conley or other brand name. Wide open, these can be very soft, especially if you use only the rear lens cell. That's my experience with a junker Conley of the same size--with the junker part being the shutter. My wife liked the effect in her portrait.


Huh? Folville has a 7 1/2"f4.5 Velostigmat II in a Betax#3 ( a tessar design) and his second lens is 4.3"f9.5 Velostigmat III wide angle in a betax #2 ( 2 glued pair w/ an air space).

The Vesar is a nice lens with a great look but a totally different animal. The Vesar is an f6 rapid rectilinear which is not corrected astigmatism. While the two Velostimats are both corrected for astigmatism.

Conley re branded just about every lens Wollensak produced, outside of a couple like the Verito and Varium. Conley put their name all the rest at one time or another.

Here's what Wollensak had to say about the Vesar in the 1919 catalog Compare