Nadar's plate camera. A museum piece or just another restoration project?

[Ian Grant]

I wasn't thinking of a roll film conversion in your case, it was the only real option with my Quarter plate camera as film's only available as part of Ilfords ULF order and expensive, plus I have no plate holder

You're right a spacers possibly all that's needed with your wooden holders, I'm more used to the German 9x12 metal plate holders that need a film insert. The only thing you may have to watch is the nominal 5x4 film size is a touch less than the plate size, but you may have no problem.

I'll copy what I have about the Sands, Hunter cameras and let you have the info as jpegs. It's interesting that the company still sold a tailboard camera 45 years later in 1928. I collect BJP Almanacs but pre WWII copies tend to be expensive, pre WWI even more so. The Tailboard camera & a field camera are in the 1928 Almanac but gone by 1935 but 35mm is beginning to appear with fast f1.5 lenses, there's better more modern Rolleiflex's and Europe made faster switch to small formats than the US.

When I'm back in the UK next month I'll be looking for plate holders for my quarter plate camera, (I may have also bought a half plate camera), let me have some photo's and dimensions in case just I find some holders that may fit your camera. I'll be liaising with a friend who deals in cameras and will ask him as well.

Ian

 

[anon12345]

And I didn't know Brad Pitt was into analog photography, maybe we should invite him to APUG

It's funny that you mentioned that. I purchased the Pentax 645N that I currently have listed in the classifieds, from a concern located on Main St. in Shawnee Oklahoma. Mr. Pitt, I do believe, has had some association with this town. It's a small world after all.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want to use it without altering/harming it, you can always have a new back made to fit it that takes 4x5 film holders. Also depending on how the original bellows are mounted, you MIGHT be able to remove them without destroying them and have a new set made to fit. I'm doing this (on a bigger scale) with a 12x15 Watson "field" camera (I use the term loosely - it's a tailboard model that is effectively self-casing, but it has no carrying handle and it is solid mahogany so it weighs a ton). The original bellows for it were completely shot when I got it so I'm just going to make (or have made) a new set.

 

[Marco B]

On a more practical note, see if you can make an adapter to take standard 5x4 darkslides, I've made an adapter for a roll-film back that slips in like a plate holder on my Quarter plate, there may be enough room to do similar with your camera. Then I made a second lens board to use a more modern lens.

I'm more inclined to try and use the original plate holders, if possible. At first glance, they look like they'ld be perfect for both 4x5 film and paper negatives with no alteration to the holder. Just drop in the film, drop in a backing board, put the septum in, and repeat for the other side. I'll realize the difficulties in actual practice. It can't be any worse than loading my ol'drop-plate camera.

On a side note, these remarks actually raise an interesting small question for me: At what time did the modern 4x5 holders become "standard"?? :confused:

E.g. if I wanted to buy a historic camera, what is the oldest camera that I can buy that will take a modern 4x5 holder without any adjustment or fiddling to either camera or holders?

 

[Ian Grant]

On a side note, these remarks actually raise an interesting small question for me: At what time did the modern 4x5 holders become "standard"?? :confused:

E.g. if I wanted to buy a historic camera, what is the oldest camera that I can buy that will take a modern 4x5 holder without any adjustment or fiddling to either camera or holders?

1946 I think, I have a BJP Almanac with the details back in the UK.

That was the point where the Internatioanl backs became standard and the Imperial & Metric size holders would fit the same backs.

Prior to WWII there was a major problem in Europe where there were no agreed standards and plate (film) holders and even roll film backs weren't interchangeable between all cameras of the same format. For historical reasons Zeiss made 3 variations at one point.

So after 1946 a European 9x12 DDS (double dark-slide) would fit a 5x4 camera and vice versa, and similarly with larger formats.

The flat sided DDS that we use now was used as far back as the 1890's but it seems to have become more Universal in the US earlier than the UK but backs became more standard with the introduction of film packs and roll film holders. Some of the early Kodak's made in the US & UK would take modern film holders.

Ian

 

[Marco B]

1946 I think, I have a BJP Almanac with the details back in the UK.

That was the point where the Internatioanl backs became standard and the Imperial & Metric size holders would fit the same backs.

Thanks Ian!

 

[Ian Grant]

If you want to use it without altering/harming it, you can always have a new back made to fit it that takes 4x5 film holders. Also depending on how the original bellows are mounted, you MIGHT be able to remove them without destroying them and have a new set made to fit. I'm doing this (on a bigger scale) with a 12x15 Watson "field" camera (I use the term loosely - it's a tailboard model that is effectively self-casing, but it has no carrying handle and it is solid mahogany so it weighs a ton). The original bellows for it were completely shot when I got it so I'm just going to make (or have made) a new set.

Is this your camera the "Premier". See attachment from the 1928 British Journal Photographic Almanac, (click for larger) if it is I also have three much better whole page adverts 1935 & 39, and 1954 for the same model.

It was made from some time in the 1880's onwards, the 15x12 model was £21 in 1898. It looks very similar to the 1928 Sands, Hunter camera which was £6 for the same size in 1928. The half plate version was still made in 1954 and still taking "Double book-form dark slides "

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Mine looks more like the Sands, Hunter than the Watson you have the advert for. I have rise only on the front standard, (very limited) tilts and swings on the rear standard via a rather unusual mechanism consisting of two brass rods that supply the friction lock for the rear standard. Fine focus is accomplished by a crank and worm-screw drive.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's artistic license in some of these illustrations, also they will look different depending on the size/format, the 5 adverts I have clearly show the same camera, but slight changes . Watson appear not to have changed the Premier camera over it's long production run of at least 70 years .

The 1910 advert uses the same image as the 1928 one, there were six sizes available from half plate through to 15"x12", the text is as follows:

For any purpose where lightness and portability are not the chief consideration (when the "Acme" is preferable), these Cameras should be chosen. They are most solidly constructed, and their extra weight gives to them the highest degree of steadiness and strength.

This model, which is our original pattern, still holds its position and commands a large sale. It has been extensively imitated but no other pattern has been introduced to equal it for strength, durability and convenience.

The Cameras have double extension to focus, giving a very long range, are adjusted by rackwork or screw (the larger sizes from 12 by 10 upwards, are always made to adjust by screw), double swinging back, giving motions in horizontal or vertical directions, rising, failing, and sliding fronts (two fronts), leather bellows body, folding baseboard, and reversing frame.

When fitted with a Repeating Back, at the extra cost shown on next page, these Cameras will do all the work required in a Studio, forming a perfect equipment both for indoor and outdoor work for professional photographers.

Included with each Camera is an extra sliding panel for a second lens ; all sizes, from ½-plate to 8½ by 6½ have a movable central partition and wide front, so that they may be used for Stereoscopic Pictures if desired, or two pictures on one plate by sliding the lens across.



Perhaps an interesting line is "It has been extensively imitated"

The 1898 advert states the camera model was introduced in 1883, the largest was a18"x16", and they made them in the common Continental sizes as well.

The Premier was the only large tailboard camera Watson made, there were some lighter touring models but full plate was the largest size.

Ian

 

[edp]

I have a half-plate Watson Acme, and the craftsmanship is superb.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm surprised how little some of these camera's are selling for, a very good condition half plate Watson Premier sold for £269 ($410) 8 weeks ago with the original case, two Dallmeyer lenses, a Thornton Pickard shutter and 6 dark slides. A 15"x12" Premier was fir sale for for £300 with no bellows, I think the seller's is an APUG member, as he mentioned having a 2nd 15x12 Premier and having new bellows made by Custom (Camera) Bellows, and getting a wet plate back made.

Ian

 

[anon12345]

I checked the book plate holders ability to handle regular 4x5 film. The film will overlap the edge of the ledge inside the holder ever-so-slightly. So, to make this method work reliably I would need to eliminate the extra space around the film to keep it centered in the window. Another option and as mentioned previous, one plate holder contained two special holders containing paper negatives. They are thin metal frames, painted black, each having a thin mahogany backing board. I need to post some pictures of these.

 

[Ian Grant]

Dann, those special paper holders are similar to the film inserts used in 9x12 plate holders. It's also the reason why the nominal size for cut film is fractionally less than for glass plates. Would 5x4 film fit those adapters ?

What some people do is use card cut to the size of a plate and stick the film to it with a couple of drops of honey, that's not something I've tried

Ian

 

[anon12345]

Dann, those special paper holders are similar to the film inserts used in 9x12 plate holders. It's also the reason why the nominal size for cut film is fractionally less than for glass plates. Would 5x4 film fit those adapters ?

What some people do is use card cut to the size of a plate and stick the film to it with a couple of drops of honey, that's not something I've tried

Ian

Great, that's all I need . . . fighting off the flies gathering under the dark cloth as I try to focus.

A question . . . the darksides on these holders have a cloth backing on the lower-half of the wood slats that make up the darkside. The slats of the darkside are not glue together. This would make the darkside flexible, just like the slats in the lid that make up a roll-top desk. What is the purpose for this design?

 

[Ian Grant]

Great, that's all I need . . . fighting off the flies gathering under the dark cloth as I try to focus.

A question . . . the darksides on these holders have a cloth backing on the lower-half of the wood slats that make up the darkside. The slats of the darkside are not glue together. This would make the darkside flexible, just like the slats in the lid that make up a roll-top desk. What is the purpose for this design?

Not sure about why they are loose but sometimes old glue degenerate over time. Often they used bone (gelatin) glues, sometimes old plate camera's are just a pile of wooden sticks, fallen apart

I've had contact frames, and the focus frame of a pre-Anni Speed Graphic fall to bits when I've tried to clean them for restoration.

Ian

 

[anon12345]

Here's an image of a similar holder . . .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7493297@N07/445428750/

Notice how the slide being pulled out is hanging low towards the tablecloth. There's is a visible gap between the slats nearer the holder. Mine slides have no sign that there was ever any glue between the slats. Interesting to say the least.

 

[Ian Grant]

It appears they were made to split so the small end should come away from the rest. See here. You learn something new every day. See Fig B15.

My guess is the second split shouldn't be there in the image you attached as it's a crack in the wood & not straight.

Ian

 

[anon12345]

I think the first part of the statement below sounds a little misleading. If the slide is pulled up and then folded, it must fold back towards the operator. If you tried to fold it over the camera (ie; forward) it would probably explode into a pile of sticks. Mine has more than one unglued joint. For grins, I'll post a picture of it also.

"Wooden draw-slides could generally not be fully removed from the dark-slide and were usually made up of several pieces of wood joined by a cloth hinge which allowed it to fold over the top of the camera when drawn.3 W. Watson (of Holmes & Watson) patented the idea of having small strips of wood stuck to the cloth hinge to make it light-tight."

 

[Marco B]

It appears they were made to split so the small end should come away from the rest. See here. You learn something new every day. See Fig B15.

My guess is the second split shouldn't be there in the image you attached as it's a crack in the wood & not straight.

Ian

Ian, do I understand you right you are also referring to this part of the text?:

"Wooden draw-slides could generally not be fully removed from the dark-slide and were usually made up of several pieces of wood joined by a cloth hinge which allowed it to fold over the top of the camera when drawn.3 W. Watson (of Holmes & Watson) patented the idea of having small strips of wood stuck to the cloth hinge to make it light-tight."

So, looking at the image below, the top part of the dark slide with the small "arms" sign on it, could be "hinged" at 90 degrees along the "cloth hinge" visible as a small horizontal line across the slide?Actually, not a bad idea if the slide was non-removable as suggested in the text and apparent from the design of the holder in the image, as it would not catch air turbulence in that configuration...


Indeed a nice text about holders!

 

[Ian Grant]

There's too many variations of these darkslides, When I had a Sanderon to fix for someone the 10x8 Book form darkslides were rigid, as have been others I've hanled. But I was watching a set of 6 half plate DDS today and they had the single bend/split, back towards the operator.

I'd guess the writer is correct, he's accessed a lot data from some good sources, over the top of the camera is ambiguous but it does cover backwards. His site is by far the most authoritative of any about British vintage wood & brass cameras.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm surprised how little some of these camera's are selling for, a very good condition half plate Watson Premier sold for £269 ($410) 8 weeks ago with the original case, two Dallmeyer lenses, a Thornton Pickard shutter and 6 dark slides. A 15"x12" Premier was fir sale for for £300 with no bellows, I think the seller's is an APUG member, as he mentioned having a 2nd 15x12 Premier and having new bellows made by Custom (Camera) Bellows, and getting a wet plate back made.

Ian

If that's what it is, that's MY camera now. I bought that one here on APUG a while ago. The difference between it and the one you posted the photo of is that it does NOT have a tripod/legs mounting ring, rather an after-the-fact 3/8 threaded socket and a solid baseboard to the tailboard.

 

[edp]

Different sized holders from different makers have different flexible hinge arrangements. My Thornton-Pickard half-plate holders, for example, have two bends in the join; the dark slide is made up of three pieces, joined with black cloth on the inside. Just like this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7493297@N07/445428750/

 

[Ian Grant]

If that's what it is, that's MY camera now. I bought that one here on APUG a while ago. The difference between it and the one you posted the photo of is that it does NOT have a tripod/legs mounting ring, rather an after-the-fact 3/8 threaded socket and a solid baseboard to the tailboard.

I posted the whole page, the top camera was the Acme a field camera

You can have higher resolution images from the other adverts if you want them, they are all quite different angles and higher quality than the 1928 image. The 1939 image show a camera tripod mounted, with it attached via two tripod sockets.

BTW the APUG member who sold the 15x12 then had his second for sale, did you buy the first from the UK ?

Ian

 

[Marco B]

I especially love these image of a semi-automatic changing box for plates, and the descriptive text that accompanies it. So simple and clever all of the described designs! For clarity (if I understand it right ): the thin black curving line on top represent a flexible light tight changing bag into which the plate was dropped before moving it to the front of the plate holder for exposure (right side of image). This text about holders is getting better each line I read! So nice to see these things explained!

"Bag Type

The plates were usually held in metal sheaths and stacked in a box having a cloth or leather top. To change plates the front or rear plate was gripped by the fingers through the bag and moved to the other end of the box. The plate had to be raised so that it could be gripped by the fingers, two common methods were:

* Lever - a lever or arm was used to raise the front or back plate. Early examples were by Newman, Rouch and Sinclair
* Draw-slide - when the draw-slide was returned after an exposure it raised the front plate, boxes by Reid and Grundmann were of this type."

 

[anon12345]

Here is a picture of one of the three holders. Since the slats are not affixed to the cloth backing you can see how it is configured. I separated the slats to add drama to the scene.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5019470996_cc7133036f_b.jpg

Here's one of the negative holder frames. It still contains a paper negative that appears to have been installed wet.
Patented May '85. It is perfect for holding a sheet that is 4x5 inches in size.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5018866873_02212950fb_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5019472116_e922f9101b_b.jpg