Please help identify my new studio camera

[Doug Kerr]

Greetings,

I have just received a lovely new 8x10 studio/portrait camera, a Christmas gift from my stepson (in cahoots with my bride). The camera has no nameplate nor other markings. Perhaps some of you can help identifiy it.

Here we see it in overview:



Specific feature details include:

1. The bed is not extensible nor foldable.

2. The rails are of triangular (rather than semicircular) cross-section.

3. Back tilt and swing are both by worm-and-sector mechnism, with brass knobs.

4. Focus is push-pull, with fine focus by a 3-start jackscrew, all knobs brass.

5. The back tilt pivot covers are diamond-shaped (rather than round as is common).

6. Retention of the top-level back layer (typically the "track" for a sliding back) is by two pegs about 1/4" in diameter into the bottom "window sill" and a pin into a single latch at the top with a long "horn" to lift it.

7. The lens board is 9" x 9", with the fin about 1/4" thick.

8. The lens board is retained by a fixed metal plate at the top and evidently a single turnpiece ("bowtie") at the bottom.


So far, the closest thing I have found to a camera with these design details is the studio (non-field) version of the J.W. Queen New Haven Reversible Back View Camera, made by Scovill Mfg. Co. in the era 1885-1890. You can see Brady's page on it here:

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/scovill/newhaven.htm

Thanks for any help anybody can give me on this.

Best regards,

Doug

[Doug Kerr]

Greetings,

This is with further regard to my new 8x10 studio camera.

What range of lens focal lengths would have been (still are) typically used on a camera of this type in studio portrait use?

This camera offers a maximum bellows extension of about 24 inches (film plane to lens board).

I actually don't right now foresee shooting with this camera, but rather displaying it in our museum. But I would like to display it with a "credible" lens.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

[Ernest Purdum]

You have a very wide range of "credible" lens lengths because of two factors that influenced lens selection:

Format size. These cameras were routinely used with reduction plateholders going down at least to the carte de visite size.

Studio length. Those with large studios could use longer lenses and were apt to do so for perspective. People were more conscious of perspective then than now.

The main limiting factor in lens selection for your camera would have been the bellows length.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Ernest,

Thanks for your observations.

I should have said that my question was predicated on the use of an 8"x10" format.

But it looks as if a wide range would be credible for my situation.

Best regards,

Doug

[brook]

12-18 inches are about right for 8x10. A fast 16" Petzval type lens would historically be correct, and be really sweet for shooting too. If you are other wise set up for 8x10, it wont be a very difficult transition to using it.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Brook,

Thanks for your observations.

Best regards,

Doug

[Jim Galli]

I am almost cerain your camera is an Anthony & Scovill which of course we knew later as Ansco. Here is an ad I have running at APUG with a giant 16" f4 Petzval. The first time you look through one of these brass cannon's a whole new world you didn't know was there opens up. This one had a working aperture which is somewhat of a luxury with these beasts.

[Gene McCluney]

That looks like an Anthony tailboard camera. It would be from the wet-plate era. You seem to be missing the ground-glass back. The back would fit on for focusing, and then come off and be replaced with a single-side wet plate holder for shooting.
A lens cap would be used as a shutter for most purposes. You can have new backs made by the Star Camera Company..for wet plate only..he won't do film conversions.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Gene,

That looks like an Anthony tailboard camera.

Yes, several people have suggested that. Some details that might be important in ascertaining the manufacturer are (see the photo in my original message):

- The focus lock slide has a distinctive hourglass shape.

- The covers for the back tilt pivots are diamond-shaped

You seem to be missing the ground-glass back. The back would fit on for focusing, and then come off and be replaced with a single-side wet plate holder for shooting.

I have put an 8x10 spring back on the camera:



This back was originally integral with the backhouse of some unknown camera. (A friend bought it still part of the backhouse, but no rest of the camera. He had it sawn free by a cabinet maker on a table saw.)

It looks identical to the back illustrated for the Rochester Camera Manufacturing Company (predecessor to the Rochester Optical Company) "Favorite" camera (c. 1896) except that the back on that camera was removable (and reversible) with the familiar pin-and-latch arrangement - not integral with the backhouse.

Note the unusual arrangement of the focusing plate springs - both pointed in the same direction. In the 1903 version of the "Favorite" camera (by then under Rochester Optical Company), the now-familiar symmetrical arrangement of the springs is found (although the rest of the back is identical).

I have mounted the back directly to the backhouse of the camera for now, but I plan eventually to make an "reversible" adapter unit that will carry the back.

The upper-left ground glass retainer was made here - I haven't yet had a chance to "antique" it.

A lens cap would be used as a shutter for most purposes.

I will be putting an early B&L/Zeiss Tessar IIb, No. 8 lens (12" focal length, f/6.3) on the camera with a 2.5" opening Packard Ideal Shutter. I made the lensboard blank today out of a laminate flooring plank with a finish closely matching that of the camera.

It would be from the wet-plate era.

Do you think the stains appearing on the bottom of the black mounting surface for the back would indeed suggest use with wet plates? The "windowsill" below isn't stained much, though.

Thanks for your inputs.

Best regards,

Doug

[Gene McCluney]

Hi, Gene,



Do you think the stains appearing on the bottom of the black mounting surface for the back would indeed suggest use with wet plates? The "windowsill" below isn't stained much, though.

Thanks for your inputs.

Best regards,

Doug

Absolutely, since this is a Wet-plate camera..the stains are most assuredly from the wet-plate process. And only wet-plate cameras would have such stains. Ideally you would get a proper back and one holder for your camera.