You Need To Restore Your Camera.

[Kav]

I was talking to my mother and she looked at my old Speed Graphic and told me I needed to restore it. It's dusty, and worn, but works just fine. I do have an older Speed Graphic that is in wonderful shape, and is my back up press camera. The older one most its time on display. It has some history, and I would hate for it to get damaged. (But I did that that one to Africa.) That's why I got another one. She felt that I should fix up the camera more for display and balked at the idea of stripping it down or leaving it in its less then pristine condition. She also felt I should get "some other" camera to replace it. I wonder how many people feel that old cameras should just be fixed up and displayed only? I wouldn't own a camera I couldn't use. It seems pointless to me. Has anyone ever told you need to stop using your camera and just put it on display?

[E. von Hoegh]

I restored my Deardorff V8, right after I bought it. So much of the finish was missing that it was neccesary, and a few little things here and there needed attention.

I didn't restore it for display, I did it so I could continue using the camera without it deteriorating.

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMHO, very few Graflex cameras are rare enough to worry about leaving them in their unrestored condition. If you want to restore it then do. If not then don't. If I'm properly reading your mother's words "between the lines" I'd say she's asking that you either retore the camera to a presentable state, in her home, or hide it away. ;)

[Steve Smith]

If I'm properly reading your mother's words "between the lines" I'd say she's asking that you either retore the camera to a presentable state, in her home, or hide it away. ;)

No, she's saying 'why don't you get a modern camera so I'm not embarrassed to be seen with you'.


Steve.

[unixrevolution]

I was talking to my mother and she looked at my old Speed Graphic and told me I needed to restore it. It's dusty, and worn, but works just fine. I do have an older Speed Graphic that is in wonderful shape, and is my back up press camera. The older one most its time on display. It has some history, and I would hate for it to get damaged. (But I did that that one to Africa.) That's why I got another one. She felt that I should fix up the camera more for display and balked at the idea of stripping it down or leaving it in its less then pristine condition. She also felt I should get "some other" camera to replace it. I wonder how many people feel that old cameras should just be fixed up and displayed only? I wouldn't own a camera I couldn't use. It seems pointless to me. Has anyone ever told you need to stop using your camera and just put it on display?

I've been told precisely once, by a know-nothing meathead, that I need to "Trade that thing (A Super Graphic) in on a Digital."

I produced an instant print from it right after he made the remark, which then turned my "old hunk of junk" into "The coolest thing I've ever seen."

As for display....No. Cameras are meant to take pictures. A camera that can't or doesn't make photographs is not a camera.

[Michael Graves]

I collect cameras as well as shoot with them. One of the criteria for any camera I add to my collection is that I be able to buy film for it in the event I want to use it. This afternoon, I had my Minolta XG9 out for a walk taking pictures with that. Last week, I was using one my Nikkormats and on another day an old Moskva 5. I have a perfectly good Chamonix that gets the lion's share of my 4x5 work and a Canham that I use for 5x7. I have had both my Crown Graphic and my Eastman 2D out shooting within the last month or so. When they're not being used, they are in a glass display cabinet in my den.

I have no problem with people who display cameras. Some of them look downright cool. To say that a collectible camera is not a camera unless it is used is akin to saying that the arrowheads in your collection are not arrowheads unless they're used. Still...I do want to be able to take out to play now and then.

[Kav]

I didn't restore it for display, I did it so I could continue using the camera without it deteriorating.

I feel this is a smart thing to do. While my camera is a beater, it will serve me well in it's present condition. But I would restore it if I felt it would allow me to use it even longer.


If I'm properly reading your mother's words "between the lines" I'd say she's asking that you either retore the camera to a presentable state, in her home, or hide it away. ;)

I don't live at home, and I was visiting her when she told me this. I keep my cameras out of site unless I'm using them. So was telling my I needed to display the camera at my house.


No, she's saying 'why don't you get a modern camera so I'm not embarrassed to be seen with you'.

If she ever hassled me for using old technology I would remind her that she turns her classroom into a huge camera obscura for her optometry class. And that is far more out dated then a Speed Graphic. ;)


I've been told precisely once, by a know-nothing meathead, that I need to "Trade that thing (A Super Graphic) in on a Digital."

I produced an instant print from it right after he made the remark, which then turned my "old hunk of junk" into "The coolest thing I've ever seen."

As for display....No. Cameras are meant to take pictures. A camera that can't or doesn't make photographs is not a camera.

I've been questioned a few times as to why I use and old camera. I normally have a developed negative with me to show why. I have also had a few others remark that I'm using something that belongs in a museum. But I totally agree with you that "a camera that can't or doesn't make photographs is not a camera." Much like a car should be driven, not just displayed.

One more reason I like having a beater camera is that I travel a lot and tend to end up in some dodgy places. I feel that having a ugly old camera is not as much of a target for thieves. And if it gets destroyed it's not that big of a loss. I can pick up another one cheaply.

[BrianShaw]

Suggestion: smile and nod politely. If she says it again, kiss her. That sould distract her for a while. Repeat as required. Eventually say "Yes Mom" and promptly ignore her.

[unixrevolution]

I collect cameras as well as shoot with them. One of the criteria for any camera I add to my collection is that I be able to buy film for it in the event I want to use it. This afternoon, I had my Minolta XG9 out for a walk taking pictures with that. Last week, I was using one my Nikkormats and on another day an old Moskva 5. I have a perfectly good Chamonix that gets the lion's share of my 4x5 work and a Canham that I use for 5x7. I have had both my Crown Graphic and my Eastman 2D out shooting within the last month or so. When they're not being used, they are in a glass display cabinet in my den.

I have no problem with people who display cameras. Some of them look downright cool. To say that a collectible camera is not a camera unless it is used is akin to saying that the arrowheads in your collection are not arrowheads unless they're used. Still...I do want to be able to take out to play now and then.

I have nothing against displaying cameras that are not currently being used. I have about 2 dozen cameras. I can't possibly use them all at once! But by the same token, they are all users, and they all get their exercise. I own some because they're neat, I own others because they do something well.

I know that a camera on a shelf not taking pictures is still a camera, but a camera that never gets used might as well not be one. A car that can't start and never moves isn't an automobile, it's car-shaped iron furniture. Cameras that can't take pictures aren't cameras because they don't do what cameras do. Cameras that don't ever take pictures will soon become cameras that can't take pictures.

My dad and I both collect firearms. One of his guns is a never-fired, Nazi-marked Walther P38. It is a gun. It is a perfectly functional, working gun. But since its condition means I can never fire it without destroying what makes it special, it isn't a gun because I can't actually put ammunition through it. It is, functionally, not a gun.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well... I'm glad I don't collect stuff. It would suck to have a half-dozen beautiful girlfriends that were too pure and too pretty to mess with. ;)

[goamules]

...
I know that a camera on a shelf not taking pictures is still a camera, but a camera that never gets used might as well not be one. A car that can't start and never moves isn't an automobile, it's car-shaped iron furniture. Cameras that can't take pictures aren't cameras because they don't do what cameras do. Cameras that don't ever take pictures will soon become cameras that can't take pictures.

My dad and I both collect firearms. One of his guns is a never-fired, Nazi-marked Walther P38. It is a gun. It is a perfectly functional, working gun. But since its condition means I can never fire it without destroying what makes it special, it isn't a gun because I can't actually put ammunition through it. It is, functionally, not a gun.

By your logic, the Space Shuttle that they are putting in the Smithsonian is not a Spacecraft, A locomotive at the park for kids to play on is not a train, and so forth. I also used to be a gun collector, and some are just too rare to shoot just so you can "prove" it's a gun. One of the biggest farces being pushed on the American people is what I see when an antique gun is brought to the Pawn Stars, Auction Hunters, and similar TV shows. The supposed "expert" at the pawn shop (though he always has to call in a real expert to give a real appraisal) always says, "Well, this gun will be worth a lot more if it actually works - let's go to the range!" I've seen them trying to shoot old Blunderbuss muskets, and a lot of other rare guns. Many made of 200 year old steel that should not be tested. Every gun collector knows you don't have to shoot a rare Patterson or Dragoon to "prove it works" to some imaginary yahoo that might buy it. But it most assuredly is still a gun.

There are many beautiful or fascinating artifacts from our past that some of us like to preserve, including cameras. Let's not judge the preservationist.

[Kuzano]

I have always been pleased with this simple treatment of a Crown Graphic. If a Crown fulfills your needs photographically, but you would just like it to be a bit more of a cosmetic pleasure, think this rendition by Jon Grepstadt is a very clean and presentable customization of the old Crown.

http://home.online.no/~gjon/crown99.htm

[Jim Jones]

I don't do cosmetic restoration to my many cameras. Worse yet, some of my Speed Graphics have been butchered to facilitate certain uses. Pristine cameras are a treasure. Successful photography with a functional camera is even better.

[Bill Burk]

Hi Kav,

Looking forward to seeing your print!

I would "restore" a camera with a CLA in a minute - if it would make it more reliable or keep it working longer.

For a Speed Graphic, though, what attention could it need? New bellows maybe if the old one's caking flecks?

[E. von Hoegh]

By your logic, the Space Shuttle that they are putting in the Smithsonian is not a Spacecraft, A locomotive at the park for kids to play on is not a train, and so forth. I also used to be a gun collector, and some are just too rare to shoot just so you can "prove" it's a gun. One of the biggest farces being pushed on the American people is what I see when an antique gun is brought to the Pawn Stars, Auction Hunters, and similar TV shows. The supposed "expert" at the pawn shop (though he always has to call in a real expert to give a real appraisal) always says, "Well, this gun will be worth a lot more if it actually works - let's go to the range!" I've seen them trying to shoot old Blunderbuss muskets, and a lot of other rare guns. Many made of 200 year old steel that should not be tested. Every gun collector knows you don't have to shoot a rare Patterson or Dragoon to "prove it works" to some imaginary yahoo that might buy it. But it most assuredly is still a gun.

There are many beautiful or fascinating artifacts from our past that some of us like to preserve, including cameras. Let's not judge the preservationist.

What's even worse are the shows like American gun, where the clowns who "build" the guns are incompetent - but the sheeple and droolers watching the show think they're for real. I'm just waiting to read of someone blowing themselves up doing something they saw the "gunsmiths" on tv do.

Edit - On topic, I'm a big fan of conservation as opposed to restoration. When I did my V8, Deardorff was still in business. I telephoned Jack Deardorff to ask what the original finish would have been, and remained in contact with him until his death. At that point in time, it was just another very nice wood 8x10. It still has the original bellows, installed in 1950.

[tim o'brien]

Well... I'm glad I don't collect stuff. It would suck to have a half-dozen beautiful girlfriends that were too pure and too pretty to mess with. ;)

That situation never happens.

Cameras are cameras if they have ever or never have taken a picture. They have history. They did a job, they did it to the best of their designed capability. That they no longer do it doesn't mean you take away the dignity of being what they are, a camera. As far as the Walther, it is still a gun. It will still do what it was designed to do. That you fire it, just takes away its perceived value, not its functionality. It IS a gun.

As far as restoring your camera? Mom needs to get a life.

tim in san jose

[unixrevolution]

By your logic, the Space Shuttle that they are putting in the Smithsonian is not a Spacecraft, A locomotive at the park for kids to play on is not a train, and so forth. I also used to be a gun collector, and some are just too rare to shoot just so you can "prove" it's a gun. One of the biggest farces being pushed on the American people is what I see when an antique gun is brought to the Pawn Stars, Auction Hunters, and similar TV shows. The supposed "expert" at the pawn shop (though he always has to call in a real expert to give a real appraisal) always says, "Well, this gun will be worth a lot more if it actually works - let's go to the range!" I've seen them trying to shoot old Blunderbuss muskets, and a lot of other rare guns. Many made of 200 year old steel that should not be tested. Every gun collector knows you don't have to shoot a rare Patterson or Dragoon to "prove it works" to some imaginary yahoo that might buy it. But it most assuredly is still a gun.

There are many beautiful or fascinating artifacts from our past that some of us like to preserve, including cameras. Let's not judge the preservationist.

I'm not saying it isn't a gun in the literal sense...I'm saying that si ce I can never use it as if it were a gun, it isn't really a gun to me. I don't consider it to be one of the firearms my dad or I own because we can never shoot it.

Very cool piece of history? Yes. Worth preserving exactly as it is? Definitely. Something I can shoot? No.

I approach cameras in the same way. If it's not something I can take a picture with, it may well *be* a camera, or have been a camera, but it's not a camera to me anymore. The defining experience of owning any camera is actually using it to take a photograph. If I can't get that defining experience, I don't think of it as a camera anymore.

[Brian Ellis]

No.

[John Kasaian]

Your Speeder is a tool. Take care of it.
Your mother is your mother. Obey your mother(when it comes time to "hang up" that ol' Speeder:rolleyes:)

[Michael Cienfuegos]

Until I found a better one, my first Graflex was a sorry looking 3x4 Auto-Graflex with both the hood and bellows composed of more gaffer's tape than actual leather or whatever the original substrate was. I paid only $20 for it. The shutter was in fine condition, not too accurate, but it did work. My girl friend said she was almost embarrassed to be seen with me (she had at the time a new Nikon D200), but was rather surprised by the quality of the resulting photos. Graflex made their cameras to be used, and this one looked like it had suffered every indignity other than being driven over by a truck. I still have it, but it has been replaced by an RB in much better shape. :p I like my Speeds, too. :)

[Drew Bedo]

While there were a huge number of these cameras made and there are still a loit of them around, eqch year there are fewer and fewer available. I strongly believe that we do not "own" these vintage cameras. My Kodak 2-D is much older than I am by many decades. I view myself as a steward rathan an owner. I am just a custodien of this 20th century holding this camera for someone else to use later on in this new century.

I would clean up both of them and keep them safe for posterity. Another way to look at this , . . . .you have a reason to buy a new camera!

[jongrep]

I have always been pleased with this simple treatment of a Crown Graphic. If a Crown fulfills your needs photographically, but you would just like it to be a bit more of a cosmetic pleasure, think this rendition by Jon Grepstadt is a very clean and presentable customization of the old Crown.

http://home.online.no/~gjon/crown99.htm

New URL: http://jongrepstad.com/building-a-large-format-camera/refurbishing-a-crown-graphic-camera/

Jon Grepstad