Repair, or restore?

[grat]

This is probably as much philosophy as anything, but given that most film cameras are now at least two decades old, and the average is probably closer to five (or more), what do you do when you buy an old camera, and it's a bit beat up? The chrome might be rubbed off, or the brass might be a bit grungy-- there might be a few spots of rust here and there, the leather's a bit faded and has splotches in places, that sort of thing.

Do you polish up the metalwork, repaint it where needed? Do you aggressively clean the leather and condition it, or do you replace it? Or do you just clean it a little bit, and try to preserve it as much as possible?

If replacing the leather, do you go with the original black, or get one of the more colorful replacement kits? Obviously, on something like my C33, with the "M"-bossed leather pattern, you're not going to be able to match the original.

Similarly bellows-- they occasionally need replacing. How close to the original should it be?

I realize I'm not talking classic cars or motorcycles here, but it's the same kind of concept-- which has more value? A "survivor" that looks like it's been through the wars (because it has), or a well-restored version that might not be all original?

 

[ciniframe]

Depends on the purpose in mind. For myself, old cameras are ‘to be used’ items so I’m not too concerned with cosmetics. Sometimes with old folders if the lens/shutter is operating but the bellows look like lace curtains I’ve removed and repurposed the lens. A couple of ancient and uncoated Kodak Anastigmats now reside on homemade 4x5 cameras. (130mm f7.7 lenses designed for a 5 inch diagonal)
Was just gifted a Kodak Tourist with the low spec 100mm f8.8 triplet. The lens in shutter works but the bellows has numerous pinholes. It won’t cover 4x5 but will ‘just’ cover 95x95mm so is now installed on a 4x5 that is masked to that size.
If I can mount it, I’ll shoot it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Depends on the camera and condition.

I've restored some MPP MicroTechnical cameras essential a British made 5x4 Linhof made as part of War reparations, MPP had access to Linhof data from the factory.

However MPP used a covering material that doesn't age well. I bought this and another in bits for £70 a bit less than $100. I sourced the missing bits for the second then re-covered both'

This is the one above now , the other is dark blue, Reality is in this case online people miss the issues seen at say a camera fair the tatty MkIII's are dirt cheap but it's cosmetic rather than functional.

How much or far you deviate from the original is a case of what's in front of you. I have 3 Seneca 7x2 cameras only one is functional, another just need bellows a third the second City View had no back, bellows, or most of the front standard. In many ways this is my best as a user camera, I've found and rebuilt a 7x5 back to fit, more importantly I've made/adapted the front standard to take Lihof/Wista lens boards, this means I can use every lens from 90mm up from my Wisat on the camera as well as some from my 10x8 cameras.

so I'll go drastic, just go with what doesn't de-value the camera.

Ian

 

[Tel]

I have a number of old cameras. Mostly I restore them to functionality so I can shoot with them, but once in a while I buy a camera because I love the way it's designed. My favorite of these is an ROC Premo 8x10 long-focus view camera (circa 1901 judging by the serial number). It was in tatters when I got it: leather was all dried and flaking off and it was missing parts and bellows. I had to fabricate a couple of the brass struts and several catches. Thankfully, the wood surfaces inside were OK and some polishing restored them. I got hold of some suitably thin leather but it was dark blue rather than black. I considered dyeing it but finally decided not to. The bellows were custom made for me by Rudy (AKA "ecbuyonline") in Hong Kong for a ridiculously reasonable amount. I have shot with it, but it's pretty cumbersome; if I'm shooting 8x10 I prefer my Kodak View #2 which is lighter and much more compact.
Premo 8x10 1 by terry, on Flickr

 

[ic-racer]

I like to make my equipment look like new. I'm not into 'vintage' or 'old-time' photography or gear.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

There is always a difference between restored and in original condition from collecting perspective. Restoration does not add to historical value, in fact it does the opposite. Old items in supreme condition fetch a much higher price because of it.

Restoration is a subject to debate, but to me it only makes sense if it can be done right, and by that brought back to "original" condition as best possible with attention to every detail and without overdoing it. In other words a successful restoration is one that does not show restoration effort. So some examples of beat up cameras are not a fit for this at all. Sticking a pink leatherette on a camera because original got ugly is not restoration, as some call it, but rather a travesty.

Bottom line, if it's meant to be used it needs to be fixed on that aspect, cleaned up and used. If it's meant for display only I'd often choose best cleaning possible, leave out obvious age/use related blemishes, but keep it original. Some chrome can be shined, but may not be worth it, if it needs to go too far and expose even more of bare metal. Even bellows that are worn, holed up, beat up or peed on, have to me far better appeal than new ones stuck onto a clearly very old piece of gear. Usually when bellows are in bad condition, so is the rest of the camera, and some do look interesting left as is just ensure no insects reside inside it).

 

[Tel]

I like to make my equipment look like new. I'm not into 'vintage' or 'old-time' photography or gear.
View attachment 256176

Nice result! Did you make the extension rail or find one?

 

[ic-racer]

Nice result! Did you make the extension rail or find one?

I repaired the original by building it up with wood strips to recreate the routed channels.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I repaired the original by building it up with wood strips to recreate the routed channels.

Nice!

 

[AnselMortensen]

Nice work, ic-racer! Beautiful camera.

 

[Tel]

Seamless finish--you'd never know! Could almost be a very early Gundlach, but it doesn't have the fancy brass corner plates on the rear standard, so I'm going to guess it's a Century....

 

[ic-racer]

 

[StepheKoontz]

There is a case to be made for "survivor" condition gear. But I'm not sure anyone would appreciate a heavily oxidized camera/lens with majorly tattered leather either unless it was an exceedingly rare sample of something. For most, just do what you enjoy as this is a hobby.

 

[Tel]

A few years back I picked up an Empire State half-plate that was covered in muck and had been gnawed by a rodent. The lens was mummified in that old tar-and-cloth electrical tape from before the war. I carefully cut away the tape and found a very old brass Cooke series III lens inside. The mummy treatment worked--it lasted many decades in good (ie functional) condition. Except for the tooth-marks the camera cleaned up well, but I was torn between the desire to preserve it and the desire to adapt it to 5x7 and shoot with it. It's still on the shelf, perhaps looking for a new owner who'll restore it...

 

[ic-racer]

5x7 Anthony Landscape lens. Very sharp.

 

[Tel]

5x7 Anthony Landscape lens. Very sharp.
View attachment 256244

Want a Cooke to play with?

 

[StanMac]

There’s something to be said for restoring the original finish of metal parts and coverings and insignias. But personally, I like a clean camera with its wear showing to give it character. The only thing I don’t like to see is corroded parts and dents and dings on the metal. I’d want those parts replace for sure, if they can be found.

Stan