5x7 Eastman View No.2 Back Curiosity

[Vaughn]

I have been using this camera in the redwoods, Yosemite, Chile, Zion, and many places in between -- it is about time I noticed something relatively obvious about it.

The GG has (overly) generous cut-corners. I like cut-corners on GG, but thought these were a little over-board and planned to get a new GG and replace the old...and keep the old as my spare. I have acquired new GG -- two new/old stock Kodak...beautiful, square corners, exactly the right width and length. However, checking out the camera (ca 1910), I found it was designed for only GG with the (overly) generous cut corners. (see image)

So the question I will ponder -- do I modify the camera back or the GG, or both (for a reduced cut-corner)? Do I risk the GG (I have handled the cutting of framing glass and I do have two) or take a chisel to the camera back? Now that I have found this neat little detail in the camera's construction, I am leaning towards not messing with it...or perhaps modify it just enough for a new GG with less of a cut on its corners. No rush (as long as I don't break the current GG!)

For now I have a ground glass in the back that works fine so I am set for my bike trip tomorrow. Heading off for a 30 or so mile ride/adventure...starting in the redwoods with a 1100 foot elevation drop down to the beach in the first mile...hope the brakes hold! If not, one of the most beautiful places in the world to die. I'll photograph some rocks that stick up out of the sand, then ride the trail south along the bottom of the bluffs to Fern Canyon and onwards (and upwards) until I get back into the redwoods and eventually my van.

[Two23]

My philosophy is to keep an old camera as original as possible. My 2D is about 100 years old and I don't want to be the one that screws it up.


Kent in SD

[Bertha DeCool]

Yup, I'm with Two23. I've had times where I had to estimate just the spot where something was cropped out.
I kind of like the air of mystery and surprise.
Look at it this way, you're carrying around the ghosts of prob'ly at least two of our ancestors. I'm of Scottish descent and if I've learned one thing in 62 years, it's Don't Piss Off The Ghosties

Addendum: I've only just had a look at the images you posted. My 5x7 2D does not share that little detail. How very odd.

[Roger Thoms]

Looks like the original finish in nice shape, I’d leave well enough alone. Just my 2¢, which has a current value of about a penny.

Roger

[Dugan]

If it were mine, I'd leave it. It's only original once.

[Vaughn]

Looks like the original finish in nice shape, I’d leave well enough alone. Just my 2¢, which has a current value of about a penny.

Roger

Yeah, it is pretty sweet -- I'll just clip the new GG when I have the need to use it. I have gotten use to the cut corners by now. Well -- about dark enough to load up some holders to tomorrow!

[Drew Bedo]

I have a 2D in 8x10 format It dates from the late 1940 or early 1950 period. i have a few other cameras that are at least vintage; one is a 4x5 Zone VI. Another is a pre-anniversary Speed Graphic. These cameras are not made any longer. They are more than just optical instruments. They are, in a sense, historical artifacts. Lenses too may be viewed this way. It pains me to see a 1/6 plate brass lens irrevocably adapted to a focus mount for a mirrorless camera.

When it comes to vintagge or antique photographica, i view myself less as an owner of an object and more a steward or curator. i will still use and maintain the item, but i feel that it is just on loan or that am just caring for it till some one else gets to use it. It may even be some photographer not yet born.

The current popularity of wet plate photography is an encouraging trend, perhaps more of the pre-sheet film equipment will now be cherished and preserved.

[Vaughn]

...The current popularity of wet plate photography is an encouraging trend, perhaps more of the pre-sheet film equipment will now be cherished and preserved.

I am a tad more 'practical' in my approach to equipment -- after all, I made a lensboard out of mattboard, then had to use gaffers tape to keep it on the camera. There are so many of these camera in the world, sitting in collections, unused...perhaps never to be used again. IMO, it is more important to use them than it is to maintain them in original condition. After all, the bellows certainly is not original on my 110 year old beastie. I also use modern lenses, film holders, and film with it.

The Eastman View No.2 is a beautiful tool. But it is a tool, not a museum piece.

[jim_jm]

I've also got a 5x7 No.2 that has the same back design for clipped ground glass. My GG is a replacement I ordered a few years ago, but doesn't seem to be as severely clipped as yours.
Been using it primarily to shoot 5x7 J Lane dry plates.
Also have an 8x10 2D that I'm using more for portraits, and have been hunting for old barrel lenses to try out.
Both cameras have been mechanically "restored" and I just clean/condition the wood for protection purposes. I also like the patina of old cameras and think they look better if they don't hide their age.

[Vaughn]

I do not have the rear extension for the 5x7...and while I do not know for sure, I do not think my replacement bellows have enough draw to extend the original specs.

Any less clipping of the corners, my GG would start to ride up the curve of the wood towards the corner and would no longer be on the same plane as the film (a couple corners might have 1 mm to spare). If this was original for all Eastman Views No.2 at the time, I would not be surprised if 95% have already been modified sometime in the last 100 years for less clipped or unclipped GG. All it takes is a little work with a hand chisel/knife and re-finishing...I'd make a mess of it.

I also have a 2D 8x10. Comes in handy if I want to use my Turner Reich as a 28" lens. Not very often. My Zone VI can handle my 24" lens, but the 28" has it coming off the gears.

Yosemite Falls
8x10, 28" lens, Acros100