help identifying 8x10 view camera

[Murrayatuptown]

Hello-

I assumed Kodak/Eastman 2-D but just started looking more closely today. Part of a 4-generation family collection I got from a retired commercial photographer a few years ago.

Weighs just under 6# with no lens board, which might rule out 2-D, looking at other statements people have made about the weight of their 2-D kit (might include lensboard & lens).

I'll post one photo of the side view of the camera with the bellows extended rather than spamming the forum with many. Has six-digit number stamped in wood that seems consistent with Graflex family tree.

I just had a Betax 5 repaired for this and was surprised the lensboard space in the front standard is only about 4"x4"..I was inspecting the bellows to tell whether it's salvageable or I should look at replacements...and realized I may be wrong about it being a 2-D. There is no nameplate. I thought I previously found holes where the nameplate had been, but didn't find that today.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I don't have the best luck sharing Google Photos albums - the links are so cryptic many people won't click on them, and some complain about what looks like a requirement (vs. suggestion) they create a Google account in order to view.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/KTUxhJ3A99MFuxQ86

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
I was able to view the photos, but as I have a Google account, that isn't surprising.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I cannot access them unless I go via my Google account, I didn't know one could access without using an account; or do I have this wrong?

Nice camera and 5.15 lbs is 2.34 kg, which is quite a light camera for the negative size one would get. A lens board and lens, along with a film holder loaded with film, would probably weigh more than the base camera.

Welcome to Photrio.

Mick.

 

[Tel]

Most definitely not a Kodak 2-D. I have 2 of them--they are not of the folding bed design. They have double-track rails front and rear. This looks like a British or European design; in any case it's one I'm not familiar with. I expect someone else on the forum can place it.

Here's a quick grab-shot of my 8x10 2-D. You can see how it's different.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Thanks, Matt, Mick, Tel.

I got this 3-1/2 years ago and hid it away, blocked behind boxes. I had in my head that it was a 2-D with 6" square lens board, and that there WAS a lens board. Memory is flaky...

I hope there is enough room for the 12" lenses I have, or another plan will have to be planned.

I also see why there is no way to clamp the rack when the bellows is extended...there are two brass knobs missing. I guess when I figure out the threads, that may narrow down a continent of origin.

 

[Tel]

Looks like a pretty sweet find. Might need new bellows but undoubtedly fun to shoot....
Do you know the Piercevaubel site? Might find it if you rummage around there: http://piercevaubel.com/cam/index.htm

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I did look there, but had my 2-D blinders on!

I think I'll ask the retiree if he remembers...if it was one of his relative's, he may not know. He ended up the owner of what the rest of the family didn't want and I relieved him of getting rid of things in ways no one wanted to happen.

 

[Tel]

Took a quick cruise through Piercevaubel and got some ideas. It looks a bit like some early E. T. Anthony cameras but VERY much like a Rochester Optical King No. 2 (c. 1899):
http://piercevaubel.com/cam/roc/king.htm

Further checking in the ROC catalog shows that the King was made in 8x10 versions.

Edit: the similarity of the brass fittings is dead on. The little lens board top latch, the springs on the back, and the brass hinges that connect the bed to the rear standard seem to be a perfect match.

 

[GKC]

Going by the rear standard, I'm guessing it's a Folmer Graflex since that part (the rear standard) resembles a Century Universal even though the front standard does not
Such a light weight camera would be very desirable for hiking..

 

[shutterfinger]

119115 is dated to a 8x10 2D Eastman View in 1922. Nothing else matches a 2D. The D on a Eastman/Kodak #2 view camera is for Dark finish.

I also see why there is no way to clamp the rack when the bellows is extended...there are two brass knobs missing.

Rail lock on cameras of this vintage is one of the knobs on the rail pinion screw in and clamp the pinion, loosen the knob to move the rail position.
I looked at the photos more closely and saw the stud next to the rail, likely standard SAE thread.

 

[Two23]

I have and regularly use a Kodak 2D 8x10. This is matching up. It's missing the little gravity plumb bob on the right rear standard.


Kent in SD

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I apparently didn't finish typing...I was given several boxes of photography items by someone who retired & moved to a condo & didn't have room. They came from 4 generations of family photographers. The grandfather was an archaeologist who documented a cave with paintings in Greece in 1901. I thought this is in too nice shape to be that old.

But the Pierce Vaubel site (thanks for finding that, Tel) says Rochester Camera Co. King View was manufactured between 1895 and 1903, and is an English compact style. "Reversible by removable back"...whatever that means.

Well, that's interesting...I appreciate the help.

Would double dark-slide holders from decades later be compatible, or might this possibly have used glass plate holders or potentially different dimensions?

The Betax 5 en route back from Alphax-Betax Shutter Services hopefully fits the relatively small lens board. Gundlach Radar Anastigmat in that shutter was my assumed candidate...if it fits. Probably...the threads are smaller in diameter than the body. The shutter is so large, there's kind of a train wreck effect on the mind making one forget smaller subtle details..

Thank you

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Reversible back apparently is means to rotate 90 degrees for horizontal vs. vertical...as opposed to rotating.

The nameplates were apparently celluloid and that may be why it's missing.

 

[GKC]

I apparently didn't finish typing...I was given several boxes of photography items by someone who retired & moved to a condo & didn't have room. They came from 4 generations of family photographers. The grandfather was an archaeologist who documented a cave with paintings in Greece in 1901. I thought this is in too nice shape to be that old.

But the Pierce Vaubel site (thanks for finding that, Tel) says Rochester Camera Co. King View was manufactured between 1895 and 1903, and is an English compact style. "Reversible by removable back"...whatever that means.

Well, that's interesting...I appreciate the help.

Would double dark-slide holders from decades later be compatible, or might this possibly have used glass plate holders or potentially different dimensions?

The Betax 5 en route back from Alphax-Betax Shutter Services hopefully fits the relatively small lens board. Gundlach Radar Anastigmat in that shutter was my assumed candidate...if it fits. Probably...the threads are smaller in diameter than the body. The shutter is so large, there's kind of a train wreck effect on the mind making one forget smaller subtle details..

Thank you

The "Reversible by removableback" mean you can take pictures in either portrait (vertical) or landscape (horizontal) format by taking the back off, rotating it and putting it back on board.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Kind of funny to marvel at the features it has...ooh, reversible back...like...uh, decades later.

Thank you for all the additional explanations.

I have an 8x10 Elwood enlarger in the garage. Probably the only 8x10 enlarger that would be put into a small hatchback car by two people...that's why I got it.

I think shooting 8x10 and processing the film is enough learning curve to worry about for a while. I figured most images will be shared online so scanning negatives is an intermediate goal...been holding onto SCSI flatbed scanners with 8x10 and 11x17 transparency capability for the day big negatives ever happen. A step closer...

 

[Murrayatuptown]

This camera was probably Charles Weller's...

https://nataliavogeikoff.com/2017/0...sentimental-capital-and-a-resort-of-scholars/

 

[GKC]

Kind of funny to marvel at the features it has...ooh, reversible back...like...uh, decades later.

Thank you for all the additional explanations.

I have an 8x10 Elwood enlarger in the garage. Probably the only 8x10 enlarger that would be put into a small hatchback car by two people...that's why I got it.

I think shooting 8x10 and processing the film is enough learning curve to worry about for a while. I figured most images will be shared online so scanning negatives is an intermediate goal...been holding onto SCSI flatbed scanners with 8x10 and 11x17 transparency capability for the day big negatives ever happen. A step closer...

I've got an Elwood as well.
It sounds like you're all set!

 

[Tel]

This camera was probably Charles Weller's...

https://nataliavogeikoff.com/2017/0...sentimental-capital-and-a-resort-of-scholars/

Seriously? That would be amazing if it's true! I can imagine some of those people in his photos looking at the same camera.

Now you really have to shoot with it. (In Athens of course.)

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I am as sure as I can be without having asked the photographer...;@).

The grandson was a commercial photographer and remembered his aunt having the 8x10 camera in her possession later, but not her having used it. She shot mostly ? 1/4-plate ? (Roughly 4x5, or a bit smaller, looking at her camera (the puzzle one, disassembled). There were some album photos of her with a dark cloth but the guy who gave me the cameras said he'll look again for the 8x10 camera.

The 1900-1901 phase of the archaeological project and the brief period of the Rochester Camera Co. King camera's manufacture (1895-1903) conveniently overlap. Had the camera been from decades later, there would have been no connection possible.

The six-digit number is puzzling...the 6# weigh-in probably eliminates probability of it being a combination of camera parts.

The ups & downs of the camera industry is almost mind-boggling.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Athens...by bicycle, too...

I think, but am not sure, if this content is different from Ms. Vogeikoff's writing, or if she referenced it.

Mr. Weller's excavation report, including photos.

Nobody seems to recall what lens(es) he used...probably something offered by RCC at that time I suppose...but that's a guess. Small lensboard...big portrait lens unlikely

 

[Murrayatuptown]

This is Mr. Weller's excavation report, including some photos. I am not sure if it is referenced in Ms. Vogeikoff's writing (quite possible).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/496689#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

[Tel]

This is one helluva find. Not just a rare old camera but one with a fascinating history.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Can anyone enlighten me on possible size differences between glass plate holders and sheet film holders? Or ground glass spacing (is 'registration' a proper phrase here) that might require a change to use 'modern' filmholders?

Thanks

 

[shutterfinger]

Can anyone enlighten me on possible size differences between glass plate holders and sheet film holders?

https://www.freelists.org/archives/pure-silver/08-2016/pdfCXYK8Hzbex.pdf for film holders.