help identifying 8x10 view camera

[Murrayatuptown]

Thank you for ANSI drawing. I had that printed out years ago but it ended up in one of many boxes of other printed out reference gems. Glad to see this again.

 

[AnselMortensen]

A Gundlach 8x10 Radar f/4.5 in a Betax #5 shutter is a big, HEAVY combination...probably too much so for that camera, unless you make a "crutch" to support it.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I read something about sheet film size being standardized to fit existing plate holders (not necessarily all plate holders, as there were apparently some camera-specific ones early on), and modern dry plate holders work with both, but, if I understood correctly, need the film spaced closer to the lens by the thickness of glass plates...2 mm, using matboard or other material. I don't know if 2 mm has always been the thickness of plates. One website mentioned (picture-framing) glass thickness being different now in the context of people coating their own glass.

So, I suppose I don't need a plate holder that fits this camera, although it wouldn't hurt. Sheet film ANSI dimensions tell what position ground glass has to be in relative to film plane in a holder.

Figuring out how well a modern sheet film holder sits in the camera back is first concern...then whether it is in a good place vs. the ground glass in the camera back. The ground glass to film plane in film holder dimension is known. Measuring ground glass position vs. film holder film plane might be easier said than done.

I suppose someone has already done this kind of thing instead of mixing chickens, eggs, and wheel reinvention.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

A Gundlach 8x10 Radar f/4.5 in a Betax #5 shutter is a big, HEAVY combination...probably too much so for that camera, unless you make a "crutch" to support it.

Thank you. I have always contemplated crutch & sling ideas due to my habit of choosing lenses others avoid.

I also have a 12" Aerostigmat which has no shutter and larger hole requirement...unlikely it saves any weight.

I have a Packard shutter with about a 2" opening...may have been used with the RCC King, as it came with the collection. If stuffing a Packard inside the bellows was a common practice, that would explain why the front of the bellows has the roughest condition.

Gotta go eyeball my hoard of barrel process lenses...an Ilex Process Paragon 15"/375 mm comes to mind as being a smaller handful.

I bought the Primitive Photography book years ago...but I think having a color-corrected lens might be a better way to figure out film & ground glass spacing before getting primitive.

I might have some achromats somewhere.

Maybe follow the designer's idea of light weight & a box for the heavyweights.

 

[shutterfinger]

I speculate the poor condition of the bellows front is from improper closing/folding up of the camera.

An article in Darkroom Techniques magazine years ago titled Improving View Camera Sharpness stated to remove the camera back, insert a film holder with a sheet of film and darkslide removed, lay a straight edge across the back ensuring that the straight edge was on equal height edges of the back then measuring from the straight edge to the surface of the film at several points. Next is to remove the film holder, put the straight edge in the same places and measure to the surface of the ground glass. Adjust the ground glass to match the film in the film holder measurement. A toothpick or similar taped to the straight edge so that it just touches the film surface provides adequate means of measurement.

On a camera of this type I would retract the front standard as close as possible to the ground glass and measure through the lens board opening..
Screws in cameras of this vintage are likely hand made therefore not the same exact size. Its best to reinstall them in the same position they were removed from to minimize stripping the hole.

 

[mshchem]

If by some miracle you could find original film sheaths that allowed use of film in plate holders you would be set. Film sheaths might be gone from the face of the earth.

 

[mshchem]

Miracle

https://www.ebay.com/itm/234338523342

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Thank you, again, Shutter finger.

mshchem, thank you. Part miracle, part mirage...I have no plate holders for this, just a couple of 8x10 film holders...somewhere...

Condition of bellows is not as bad as I would expect for 120+ years, but maybe it does still indicate handling/learning curve issues. I thought when I got it I could see stiffeners coming loose in the back. I haven't had the back off yet, but it does look easy. It might have been pointed out to me when offered to me.

I found my own inquiry from another decade about my Ilex Process Paragon 15", that I mislabeled 360 mm, answered with reference to process camera distances vs. infinity, and it was largely agreed it was adequate for 5x7. I've never had a 360, and remember mine having 375 engraved at the back. Today I see people claiming use on 8x20 and 11x14, so I'm puzzled (not cm!). Then I wondered if they had Ilex Paragon and not Process Paragon, but more than one person chimed in...or multiple people were talking about a conventional non-process lens and the discussion got shifted.

I'm focused (maybe diffracted is more like it...) on moving odds & ends to eBay to budget for a new bellows. One of the concerns I have, never having made a bellows myself, is how compactly the original fits into the camera body. Maybe that's no big deal, but I could see a clumsy first attempt on my own not folding nicely. Obviously the available bellows replacements are made by people with greater skill than me, but I think I will include retracted distance measurements so there is no uncertainty.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

 

[Murrayatuptown]

This is another back I got years ago, about 13-3/4" x 13-3/4" back.

It'll probably be easier to adapt the Rochester back to sheet film than think this 2nd back is a candidate.

Much thicker lumber like pine or poplar. I think trying a film holder is a the best place to start. It looks to be a bit less than 8" x 9-7/8"...maybe 7-5/8" x 9-7/8". Roughly 2" thick.

Two good size holes on two sides...my guess another form of rotating back for portrait/landscape changeover, that seats on a pair of pins on one side. Look at all familiar? Haven't found and markings yet.

Thank you

 

[Ian Grant]

It's a British style field camera design but made in the US, these usually have a British name. This one is a Rochester Optical Co, "King Camera".

Ian

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Thank you, Ian.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Hello: a couple topics separated by 1) & 2) headers

1) I have seen mentioned that the lensboards for this Rochester 'King' camera are '3-part', but have only seen the front of one in online camera pics, or other cameras missing a lensboard, like mine.

My front standard has a single 'step'. The widest opening is 4-1/4" square (4.24) and the next smallest opening is the same as the outside of the bellows frame, 4" square (3.97).

The depth of the 4-1/4" to 4" 'step' is a little less than 1/8" (0.112").

Plenty of lensboards have two square profiles. Might the third part be a little less than 4" square so there is a 'block' that goes against the front bellows frame, forming a minimum of two corners for light leaks to be blocked by?

Or, does anyone have a picture of the lens board typical of Rochester Camera (Supply or Company) view cameras? If my photo of the front standard is small enough I'll upload it. Oh, 2nd question, Topic 1...it look like someone removed and reinstalled the brass plate the edge of a lensboard would drop into...because there is no edge and the screws are offset from the horizontal center line of the brass plate. I think I need to reverse that plate.

2) I tried measuring the bellows parameters for replacement last night. There is only one screw left holding the rear bellows frame...lost to the ages. It looks like the bellows was installed thru the back of the camera and the wood screws held the black bellows frame inside the thin outer profile of the camera 'body'. There appear to be small tacks or brads attaching the bellows to the frame.

The front bellows frame I haven't figured out how to (gently) access yet. Can't see the back of the front bellows frame, possibly due to deformation of the front pleats (sagging). It appears to fit into the front standard from the back, and similar wood screws would hold the bellows frame inside the front standard.

The bellows is square/symmetrical so the top and side pleats seem to be aligned. I am accustomed to rectangular bellows that creat confusion (for a beginner bellows analyst) about what counts as a pleat. On some rectangular bellows, a peak on one side aligns with a 'valley' on the adjacent side.

The only pleat counting confusion I'm having with this is that the front and rear seem to have distinct end 'flanges' that look like truncated pleats...they mount right against the bellows 'frames' which are really more like couplings...the bellows do not wrap around the frames...the ends are more 'finished' and mate against the wooden end 'frames' I am reluctant to call frames any more.

I hope this makes sense.

The only replacement bellows I ever bought had compatible rear construction but was provided with a metal 'lens plate' with a hole for a smaller lens. So my expectations of assembly methodology are pretty shallow.

Thank you.

Murray

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I found an 8x10 Fidelity film holder with no slides that I had taken to work...in a file cabinet! I want to say it was under 'F', but it was in an unmarked folder. But that works for a trial fit in the Rochester King and the thicker mystery back I included in this thread.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

The Fidelity holder fit the Rochester back. I thought it was more difficult than I expected but maybe I'm comparing to a 4x5 camera with smaller springs, and the camera not on a tripod (holding closed camera with one hand). May be easier with two free hands.

Film in a plate holder I can visualize...film needs to move closer to the lens, and is accomplished by a film sleeve (or added shims?).

But a film holder can only go where it fits, or away from the lens...can't be moved forward...spatial mental block, never having seen a glass plate holder to compare to a film holder.

 

[Tel]

The "tack the bellows into a wood frame" mounting method is standard for these old wooden view cameras. New bellows are typically supplied with extra fabric on both ends to allow for mounting onto the wooden frames. My method is a combination of Pliobond and tacks to attach the bellows fabric to those frames. On the front, I usually wrap the fabric around the frame (going around the side and lapping over onto the front surface) then screwing the frame from the back into the front standard. Carefully done, this usually gives a good light seal. The back frame often mounts with screws from the inside and presents a wood surface to the ground glass frame where it snaps into the rear standard. I'm not sure what your "King" has, but I've just finished mounting new bellows on a Gundlach Korona , which has the fabric mounted to the inside of the frame, and screws going through the fabric and into the standard.

This sort of bellows mounting often requires a bit of woodworker's and/or upholsterer's finesse. In my Korona I had to cut some filler strips to make a better mounting surface on the top and bottom of the rear frame. And you may need a sharp knife to cut away excess fabric after the bellows are mounted. Take it slowly and plan carefully and it'll be fine. Your primary objective is to make a light-tight seal.

I agree about that brass plate on the front standard--it needs to be the other way up so it makes a pocket into which your lens board slips. Then the latch on top will hold it in place. I wouldn't worry about how many "steps" you need: two should be plenty. You need one up front the full width of the outer opening and another layer behind that to fit the inner opening. In theory that should give you a good seal, but I usually sneak a bit of felt or foam rubber behind the first step for insurance. I usually use 1/8-inch birch plywood for my lens boards, doubling up on the second stage to make it thicker and rotating the pieces when I glue them together to discourage any tendency to warp.

Some pics:

 

[Tel]

Further thoughts:
The best way to work on the frames is to remove them from the rails/bed. Take out the rear ground glass frame and unscrew the rear bellows frame from the standard and you may be able to access the screws in the front frame. Worst case scenario you might need to cut the bellows (but I doubt it). As far as counting the pleats, I've always just counted the top row. One pleat more or less never troubled me too much.

As far as the distance from the lens to the sheet of film, what you really want to do is make sure that the distance from the back edge of the rear standard (or front edge of the ground glass frame) to the film surface is the same as the distance from that edge to the front surface of the GG. Sometimes this is most easily accomplished by shimming the ground glass. Essentially, you're making certain that the image you see in the ground glass is the exact same distance from the lens as the film surface is. I take the back off the camera with the GG in it, lay a square metal rod across the (forward) opening and measure the distance from the front (frosted) surface of the GG to the metal rod. Then I do the same with a film holder (load it with scrap film to be precise) in the back and make whatever adjustments I need to make those distances the same.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Thanks, Tel.

May I ask where you got your bellows?

 

[Tel]

You may! I got them from ecbuyonline2008 AKA Rudy and now apparently also etone on the evilbay. I've bought maybe seven bellows from him over the years--always well made. He'll do custom work if you send him the specs. I've also heard good reports about Sandeha Lynch in the UK but apparently he's no longer doing LF.
Rudy:https://www.ebay.com/str/ecbuyonline2008/Camera-Bellows/_i.html?store_cat=2305208016

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Now is my last chance to measure & order, to avoid threatened BOTS 'bend-over tariffs'.

Gotta be black bellows. The modern red double-coated material is obscenely informal. (or informally obscene)

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Since its is a Rochester camera, most probably Eastman plateholders should fit, for instance (I'm not related to the seller):

NICE Antique 8x10 Glass Plate Holder. Eastman KODAK. View Camera Photography | eBay

Made by Eastman Kodak-- in the teens to 1920's. It is made of mostly wood and is for Glass Plates, not sheet film (unless you modify it), and thus it's a little thicker than the sheet film holders of the era.

www.ebay.com

or the ones made by Folmer & Swing:

8x10" Vintage Wood Film Holder, Sterling, Folmer&Schwing Eastman Kodak Awesome • $35.00

8X10" VINTAGE WOOD Film Holder, Sterling, Folmer&Schwing Eastman Kodak Awesome - $35.00. FOR SALE! This is the only holder of it's kind that I have ever seen. The holder was ready to go in my studio when I made the decision to not shoot large format film anymore, so my loss is your gain. This...

picclick.com

...with these 'film insert sheats', you can use the holders with currently available sheet film

 

[Murrayatuptown]

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

The grandson is a Weller with the same middle name, and he knows what all the photographers in the family shot, if their cameras had brand names. His aunt's plate camera was obtained when she was a college student, and her husband machined some parts for her, like a geared tilt back. This was totally unmarked and disassembled to refinish, but not completed. So it's a puzzle and a mystery.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Since its is a Rochester camera, most probably Eastman plateholders should fit, for instance (I'm not related to the seller):

NICE Antique 8x10 Glass Plate Holder. Eastman KODAK. View Camera Photography | eBay

Made by Eastman Kodak-- in the teens to 1920's. It is made of mostly wood and is for Glass Plates, not sheet film (unless you modify it), and thus it's a little thicker than the sheet film holders of the era.

www.ebay.com

or the ones made by Folmer & Swing:

8x10" Vintage Wood Film Holder, Sterling, Folmer&Schwing Eastman Kodak Awesome • $35.00

8X10" VINTAGE WOOD Film Holder, Sterling, Folmer&Schwing Eastman Kodak Awesome - $35.00. FOR SALE! This is the only holder of it's kind that I have ever seen. The holder was ready to go in my studio when I made the decision to not shoot large format film anymore, so my loss is your gain. This...

picclick.com

...with these 'film insert sheats', you can use the holders with currently available sheet film

Thank you Ron.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

A Gundlach 8x10 Radar f/4.5 in a Betax #5 shutter is a big, HEAVY combination...probably too much so for that camera, unless you make a "crutch" to support it.

Yes. I must find a way to at least try it out, after getting the shutter cleaned
/adjusted.

Thank you