Printable View
This studio camera does not have a back, but i think the removable plate holder(?) is 10 x 10 i believe. Any idea how it would have been originally configured? it has 36" bellows and Taylor-Hobson Cooke Aviar Anastigmat Series IIIB f6 lens
All help is appreciated. Thanks.
Jon
sorry about the direction of a couple of those pics.
here are some more.
It's crying out for a wet plate back, though it's easier to adapt a conventional 8x10 film back and use converted 8x10 film holders as wet plate holders, with the caveat that you can only go up to 7x9 inches. That would also give you the option of using film.
How was this item (see picture) used?
These graphic arts/process cameras are well built but have few movements.
Your last image shows the back! This looks like it held a GG frame, which could be removed to hold a single plate holder. Or the plate holders could been in a large frame- like the photo.
This is a common design for normal big cameras in the 19th century and for fixed cameras in the 20th century. This was the commonest design for sliding box cameras of the 1850's.
The square format system is used where there is place to install the glass plate horizontal or vertically in the holder.
I include a couple of examples of these types.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Wilson
I believe and my opinion is this is an enlarging/enlarger camera and the "holder" is actually the "negative" (plate) holder that was intended to be enlarged. The open back was meant to have a light source connected to it which is why the plate holder is inserted in front of the back opening. 1st the light source then 2nd the negative plate to be enlarged 3rd the bellows/lens for focusing the negative and sized by moving entire unit towards or away from paper/easel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Wilson
Perhaps!
There was a huge variety of these sorts of cameras, many with dual or multi functions. The rear insert does look it could hold a glass plate, but 10x10" is hardly a standard plate dimension.
Louis, the thought crossed my mind too that it was an enlarger. Some google search did show this company did make enlargers too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Pacilla
Does the lens look like one that would be used in the 1920-1930s in Canada? I think that is where I got it about 20 years ago.