Rochester Universal - American Beauty

[goamules]

I am very pleased with this 1890s Rochester Optical Company Universal I just got. Though large field and studio cameras with sturdy, kitchen table leg standards are what most wetplaters look for, there is something about the refined size and quality of the dryplate era. This one is in wholeplate size, 6 1/2 X 8 1/2, which I'm sure will be a challenge compared to the 5x7 and 8x10 I usually shoot with film. It came complete with 2 dryplate holders in a nice canvas hard case.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8165/6964691414_d0374a5bbb_c.jpg

After handling and owning several English cameras, I've come to notice they often nicer than the average American camera from the 1860-1880 period. Their wood is spectacular, their brass is inletted, The screws are all aligned. A typical American tailboard camera from the wetplate era has a frontier primitive look. But starting in the late 1880s, Rochester, Century, and a few others began to create some pretty nice competition. The mahogany on a high end Rochester or Century is top quality, as is it's finish. This Universal is an American take on the English style camera. It folds up very small, just a couple inches thick. It has a lot of bellows, rear tilt and front rise, and a 4" lensboard. It feels secure and substantial, with all that mahogany and heavy brass.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8161/7110764711_e6effb7dd0_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7186/7110765323_5acef753a9_z.jpg

The condition is fantastic, you really have to hold it to appreciate the beautiful polish on that exotic wood. I'm going to try to shoot it this weekend.

[goamules]

And some more for wood and brass lovers. Notice how the screws are aligned, not commonly done in America. They made many sizes from quarterplate all the way up to 17X20. It was their most expensive camera when they came out. This wholeplate size folds up about as large as a laptop case, and was priced at $43. http://piercevaubel.com/cam/roc/univ2.htm and http://piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1893rochesteropticalcolp502.htm#page 4-5 for more.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7087/6964692190_4680f0b735_c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7041/7110766205_5576264539_c.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7110765213_8fbd293981_c.jpg

[E. von Hoegh]

That really is lovely.

Can I have it? (hopeful smiley)

[Lachlan 717]

Nice, Garrett!!

What are the 2 bolts/nuts atop the front standard for?

[Mark Sawyer]

Beautiful woodwork!

Guess I'm going to have to go through all my cameras and align the screws... :rolleyes:

[goamules]

Sorry E. Von, I haven't had it long enough yet. But I've got a nice Seneca Improved 8x10 I'd sell now!
Lachlan, the front standard tightens down onto the rail with those knobs. The front rise is handled manually, locked in place with that little brass button to the left of the lensboard. It's really a cool camera.

[goamules]

Beautiful woodwork!

Guess I'm going to have to go through all my cameras and align the screws... :rolleyes:

Nah, the traditional way over here was to use nails, then paint a screw slot on the head. Aligned of course.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Nice camera, Garrett! I've got the 11x14 version that is in near pristine condition. They are beautifully made and wonderfully functional. I've never been a fan of the big, beastly studio cameras. The only downside is the relatively small lensboard size. But I am having the front standard modified slightly to hold flat aluminum 6x6 boards that I use on my 8x10 Kodak Master.

[goamules]

Thanks Kerik, I agree. My Kodak 2Ds are just functional, but not that nice looking compared to what they looked like when Century made them as the No. 2. With this Universal, my plan is to use period wider lenses, like a nice 6.5 inch Dagor, and a 5x7 Tessar that I know covers a lot more. No giant petzvals for this, but the 9" Struss should fit. My bigger problem is it came with plate holders, not film holders. I'm thinking of how to make a metal film insert out of Trophy plate....

[E. von Hoegh]

Sorry E. Von, I haven't had it long enough yet. But I've got a nice Seneca Improved 8x10 I'd sell now!
Lachlan, the front standard tightens down onto the rail with those knobs. The front rise is handled manually, locked in place with that little brass button to the left of the lensboard. It's really a cool camera.

Thanks, I have a V8 so don't need the Seneca. Whole plate is the smallest film to contact print, IMO, and one of those Rochesters with a nice 8 1/4" Dagor would be a great hiking camera.

Did the swing work as I thought?

[goamules]

Thanks, I have a V8 so don't need the Seneca. Whole plate is the smallest film to contact print, IMO, and one of those Rochesters with a nice 8 1/4" Dagor would be a great hiking camera.

Did the swing work as I thought?

Yep, that's my plan, put it in a laptop messenger bag, and take it on a Summer trip to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. IF I can get some working film holders going.....

I'm not sure on the swing. I can't figure out why else they have those 4 knobs on the bottom, with 2 inches of travel. Yet, when I tried to move one back more than the other, it was pretty tight and I didn't want to torque it. If you loosen them and just pull rearward, the whole back slides back easily. If you try to do it unevenly, the hinge points for the side bars are getting tight and libel to bend. So I'm not sure this one has swing. Hopefully someone who has another that definitely swings will speak up.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Mine is out of my hands while it is being modified, so I can't check on the swing issue presently.

[Joe Smigiel]

If you try to do it unevenly, the hinge points for the side bars are getting tight and libel to bend. So I'm not sure this one has swing. Hopefully someone who has another that definitely swings will speak up.

The two nuts at the top that tighten the front standard can be used to get some front swing. Instead of locking the standard perpendicular to the rail there is enough overlap to set it at a slight diagonal. I don't have mine handy, but I seem to recall those other 4 knobs had something to do with how the camera folds and getting some more extension out of it. I don't think they are for rear swing although they may increase rear tilt by moving the box back further so it isn't hitting the bed. (Not sure of that without having camera in hand.)

Here's mine:
72649 72650

I made the green bellows but it is just a tad too thick. The camera will still close, but it's really tight. I made a pattern though so I'll be able to do another fairly easily.

I have another Universal and a Carleton (that has a fancy brass tripod plate incorporated in the design) that need the bellows replaced.

I too really like the design and compactness of these English-style cameras.


This one is in wholeplate size, 6 1/2 X 8 1/2, which I'm sure will be a challenge compared to the 5x7 and 8x10 I usually shoot with film.

I like whole-plate because it is a nice contact print size and as far as wetplate goes, it is the largest plate I can hold from side to side between my thumb and middle finger which makes it easier to load holders with a wet plate, etc.

[goamules]

Thanks Joe and Kerik, I think you're right, the back knobs are mostly to allow more tilt, and to help fold. But the front swing idea is great, that seems to work pretty well!

And Kerik, an 11x14 one would be amazing, nice bellows on your Joe. Did anyone notice there is no manufacturers white plate on mine? I think that's why I got a good deal on it, no one knew what it was.

[TheDeardorffGuy]

Beautiful woodwork!

Guess I'm going to have to go through all my cameras and align the screws... :rolleyes:

Noooooooo! Do not do that! Once the screw snugs down it is seated. If you tighten them to look pretty you will strip the threads that the screw has made. Even a half turn. I've restored many english cameras and have seen the issue with the threads first hand. When you put the screw back in it will not snug down. On english cameras you must replace the screw in the exact hole it came out of so it lays flush with the brass base. On early Deardorffs there is some evidence they tried this but saw it was not worth the effort.

[Mark Sawyer]

That's okay, Ken. Since Garrett explained,


Nah, the traditional way over here was to use nails, then paint a screw slot on the head.

...I just sanded the painted screw slots off my nails and painted new ones on, all lined up! :rolleyes:

[Joe Smigiel]

FWIW, I forgot to mention that I drew the bellows pattern to scale in Photoshop and uploaded several image files of the stiffener pattern to my tumblr.com (http://smieglitz.tumblr.com/post/8784923807/roc-bellows) account. The image files can be saved and printed out onto stiff paper via an inkjet printer in case anyone has one of these Rochester models that needs a DIY bellows replacement.

I also decided to replace that green bellows I made. I made the next one out of an iridescent burgundy fabric.

72699

That's one of Reinhold Schable's meniscus lenses on the camera.
72698

[Kirk Gittings]

Nice!I also have some this type of nice stuff in my PC.
I sure will must be next time post here...
So far all your posts have been pretty random with nothing to do with LF photography. If this is the prelude to some kind of spam. You will be banned and everything you written deleted.

[goamules]

I decided on a perfect lens for this wholeplate Rochester. It's an English Style camera, so a Taylor Taylor Hobson Rapid View Portrait (RVP) should do the trick.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8022/7615612952_af26e38226_c.jpg

[Peter Gomena]

How much bellows draw does your camera have? I might attempt making a bellows with Joe's pattern for my ROC Standard WP camera. It came with a 24" bellows, but I never use more than 18" and would like to have a more compactable bellows for use with shorter lenses.

Beautiful camera, I'd love to find one like it. Mine is a studio or tailboard model, and yours is much more refined and practical for field use.

Peter Gomena

[goamules]

Thanks, I do like the camera, just starting to use it. The bellows go out 18 inches approximately, maybe a few more. I hate to stretch them. The Universal and the Carlton where the top of the line models for Rochester, they cost a lot more than their tailboards. I also have a 5x8 tailboard, and it's wood is almost as nice.

[Joe Smigiel]

Sweet Garrett. Looking good.

[premortho]

From what I've seen, all Rochesters have beautiful wood. Gorgeous camera...wish it were mine!!
Thanks, I do like the camera, just starting to use it. The bellows go out 18 inches approximately, maybe a few more. I hate to stretch them. The Universal and the Carlton where the top of the line models for Rochester, they cost a lot more than their tailboards. I also have a 5x8 tailboard, and it's wood is almost as nice.

[IanG]

In many ways you have the best of both worlds a British style field camera with a modern back. Even in the 1950's UK made wooden cameras were still being made to take book form Darkslides (UK term for film holders) and there was no compatability. Great camera.

Ian