Why all the bad rap on Burke & James?

[Dave Parker]

I went to a car show the other day. There was guy there with a restored 53 Chevy. He was pretty proud of the thing.

I didn't have the heart to tell him, that a 53 Chevy was an ugly piece of crap the day it was dragged out of the Detroit plant.

Down the line was a 57 Chevy.

Ah, a work of art.

Life is strange that way. He missed it by 4 years.


Michael

As always......Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....

Function is in the hands of the user..

That is the reason we have so many choices..

Dave

 

[Jim Chinn]

I went to a car show the other day. There was guy there with a restored 53 Chevy. He was pretty proud of the thing.

I didn't have the heart to tell him, that a 53 Chevy was an ugly piece of crap the day it was dragged out of the Detroit plant.

Down the line was a 57 Chevy.

Ah, a work of art.

Life is strange that way. He missed it by 4 years.


Michael

I think if one uses cars as a metaphor, an American Motors Rambler might fit a B&J more aptly. Awkward, ugly and underpowered, but still got you were you needed to go.

 

[df cardwell]

I think if one uses cars as a metaphor, an American Motors Rambler might fit a B&J more aptly. Awkward, ugly and underpowered, but still got you were you needed to go.

Nah, Jim. It's a taxi cab.

With the Orbit, you got a newer design than the 2D,
( and a far better camera than the Korona and Seneca,
which were intended as cheap alternatives to Kodak or Ansco, nothing more ! )

The Orbit was easier to manufacture, so it was cheaper.

It could be ASSEMBLED, not crafted,
and it fit the demands of the WW2 / post-WW2 world.

Making a camera from 1945 - 50 technology made a lot of sense,
and when it was the basic camera in a photographer's toolbox
it was a great design which could be paid for with the income a small town shooter could expect to make.

At it's best, B&J was a one-stop supplier of all things photographic, from Cooke and Schneider to a variety 'house brand' stuff ( some good, some quite dodgy ). It allowed a small town camera shop access to all manner of goods, and it served little studios quite well.

The Orbit gave a local shooter a 5x7 portrait camera,
and inexpensive sliding back and roll holder
( which did a very good job, thanks ).

You could put a 150 Symar on your Orbit
and shoot 5x7 groups in the studio,
( with the sliding back, of course )
switch to the roll back to do head and shoulders,
and later, color portraits.

For tighter shots, remove the front cell of the Symar and have a nice, tight portrait look.

You could furnish your studio easily, all from B&J.

Remember, the post WW2 years saw LOTS of guys who had learned photography in the service set themselves up as 'pros' when the war was over.

There was a new middle class,
consumers had money ( which had never been the case before ! )
and there was a good market for small studios !

THAT is the world B&J served.

( The Deardorff was simply made for a different market -
not snobby amateurs, but pros making different pictures )

.

 

[eddie gunks]

I went to a car show the other day. There was guy there with a restored 53 Chevy. He was pretty proud of the thing.

I didn't have the heart to tell him, that a 53 Chevy was an ugly piece of crap the day it was dragged out of the Detroit plant.

Down the line was a 57 Chevy.

Ah, a work of art.

Life is strange that way. He missed it by 4 years.


Michael

57 chevys are BORING. they are a dime a dozen and a bit over done! i have not seena 53 for some time, but as with all the cars from the 50s i am sure i is a beauty all by it self. chrome anyone?

eddie

 

[eddie gunks]

I own the ugly of all uglys.. The Calumet C-1 Green Magnesium Monster. Not a very fashionable camera but it has everything I need. Add a Majestic tripod and you have a combination that can double as a car jack or scaffold. I lug everything in a large Stanley rolling plastic toolbox. My photos are not very good and I know it but how else do you learn? I am too busy having fun..

what john said. my kodak 2d has seen many better days.....she needs a good cleaning too.....but i am too busy shooting and processing!

eddie

 

[Lachlan Young]

B&J = Austin FX-4

Deardorff = Bentley Continental




Lachlan

 

[Dan Fromm]

B&J = Austin FX-4

Deardorff = Bentley Continental




Lachlan

Hmm. Both are trucks.

 

[Roger Hicks]

B&J = Austin FX-4

Deardorff = Bentley Continental

Lachlan

What does that make a Gandolfi, which is a more rigid, better finished camera than a Deardorff?

Cheers,

R.

 

[df cardwell]

What does that make a Gandolfi, which is a more rigid, better finished camera than a Deardorff?

Cheers,

R.

Silly man.

 

[blansky]

57 chevys are BORING. they are a dime a dozen and a bit over done! i have not seena 53 for some time, but as with all the cars from the 50s i am sure i is a beauty all by it self. chrome anyone?

eddie

They are a dime a dozen because people loved them, they sold like hotcakes and were probably one of the best postwar cars with a great engine.

The 53 on the other hand, well, pretty much a homely old spinster.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What does that make a Gandolfi, which is a more rigid, better finished camera than a Deardorff?

Cheers,

R.

A Bristol.

(Need I say more...)

Lachlan

 

[jolefler]

Rejoice! Rejoice! The couple of old D2's I own are now considered "Elite" cameras....just yesterday I was moaning about this old b**** not locking down well enough.

 

[Wayne Olson]

Well....I had to ask, didn't I??

To all,

Thanks for your interesting and insightful replies. I didn't mean to stir a pot (which might already have been boiling) but to ask that we, as the posting LF community here, be aware that a LOT of people look us up for input. I would hate for a prospective LFer, trying to get into the art at a lower price, to forego trying a B&J or some other often dismissed brand and even giving up on trying LF based on what they might perceive as snobbishness (no fingers being pointed here, BTW) or make a conclusion that it's just too costly. I want to see more and more LF being practiced and produced. I gain so much from reading other experiences and problem solutions. I love seeing the beautiful work being produced and shared on the galleries.

I liked all the automobile analogies, though. What about that POS AMC Pacer I once owned? What does that equate to? A Samsung 3MP digital??

What several posters said, I agree with - it's just a box to hold your lens and film holder, really. If it "fits" you and you are happy with the work you turn out, then it is indeed the best camera there is. For you.

So, I think my question was answered, somewhat. It's always nice to get my niche of the culture going and cranked up. Not trolling and not trying to get some justification. Just an observation with some great responses.

Thanks all,
Wayne

 

[DBP]

I liked all the automobile analogies, though. What about that POS AMC Pacer I once owned? What does that equate to? A Samsung 3MP digital??

No, that would be the equivalent of the justly maligned Kodak 35 RF - inferior performance in an unpleasant package.

 

[MattCarey]

I liked all the automobile analogies, though. What about that POS AMC Pacer I once owned? What does that equate to? A Samsung 3MP digital??

Wayne

So, a guy named "Wayne" owned a Pacer?

Did you used to do a cable-TV show from your parent's basement?

Party on, Garth!

Matt

 

[jbbooks]

'53 Chevy? What a dog. Never mind the shift lever that fell from 2nd into 3rd, if you used the clutch (which you did not need to--just get off the gas and shift slowly without it).

What I remember about it was it was the last of the Chevy's without an oil pump. Only splash cups to lubricate the bearings. Every time I drove it over 55 for any distance, I would have to spend another week-end underneath it replacing the bearings.

 

[Dan Fromm]

A Bristol.

(Need I say more...)

Lachlan

Yes, lots more. IIRC, Bristol cars embody the finest technology of the 1930s, taken from the BMWs thatthe 400 was copied from. Gandolfis embody late 19th century technology, materials sometimes excepted. They're much more old-fashioned.

What Bristol and Gandolfi have in common is that continued production after the current proprietors die isn't assured. One hopes that Mr. Crook will live forever.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Wayne Olson]

So, a guy named "Wayne" owned a Pacer?

Did you used to do a cable-TV show from your parent's basement?

Party on, Garth!

Matt

Schwing!!!

 

[Jim McD]

The bad rap is not deserved. My 5X7 has served me well for 15 years. I bought it with an eye toward refinishing it (ala Patrick Alt's article in View Camera several years back) but function won out over form.

 

[MattCarey]

Schwing!!!

As in "Folmer and..."?

Ah, secret messages about analogue photography hidden in Wayne's World!

Matt

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, lots more. IIRC, Bristol cars embody the finest technology of the 1930s, taken from the BMWs thatthe 400 was copied from. Gandolfis embody late 19th century technology, materials sometimes excepted. They're much more old-fashioned.

What Bristol and Gandolfi have in common is that continued production after the current proprietors die isn't assured. One hopes that Mr. Crook will live forever.

Cheers,

Dan

And Eddie at Gandolfi!

There's also some good 50s technology in Bristols, too -- American (based) V8s since they dropped the straight 6 about 50 years ago. And Superleggera bodies, unlike (as far as I remember) the BMWs.

'Classic' (Precision/Traditional) Gandolfis in their current form are more 20s/30s too, actually; the 1890s camera was the tailboard Universal. And Eddie has put in more and better movements.

Then of course there's the Variant, a 1990s view camera with interchangeable formats, arguably more modern than any other field-type camera except perhaps Canham and (pace Ole) Carbon Infiniti.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Silly man.

Ever compared the two side by side? For rigidity, finish and (as I recall) movements? Having heard what wonderful cameras they were for years before I first saw one some 20 years ago, I was quite surprised at how ordinary Deardorffs are.

Yes, there are some 'rat' Gandolfis -- the ebonized models don't wear well, and everone (including me) tried to talk Brian Gould into switching from MDF to real tree for the Variant. When they finally did, the sales of the MDF model fell off a cliff face.

Cheers,

R.

 

[df cardwell]

I've owned my Deardorff since 1970. My Gandofi, since the early 1990s.

Objectively, they are brilliant, dazzling, and wonderful cameras.

After I had used them both, and taken each on it's own terms, it became hard to find fault with either. But they have diffrerent personalities.

I'd rather use either than any metal camera, or any other wooden camera ( well, the Canham is really nice, too. and Ebony.... gosh it's nice having paid for the camera so long ago my pockets don't hurt anymore )

The Gandolfi looks like it was made in London ( well, Andover ), the Deardorff in Chicago. That's the difference.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd rather use either than any metal camera, or any other wooden camera ( well, the Canham is really nice, too ).

I'd probably agree with that. Perhaps I overstated, as a result (as I explained) of having heard for years how Deardorffs were so wonderful: there's an inevitable sense of letdown. But I still think the Gandolfi (Precision/Traditional) is better finished and more rigid. I'd agree there's really not much in it.

But 'silly man' didn't give anyone much to go on.

Cheers,

Roger