sdedalus83
Member
I recently picked up a dirt cheap, unmarked, prewar press camera as my next project. The only thing I've seen online which looks even remotely close are the really ancient speed graphics.
Here's the camera.
And the lens geometry - pardon the terrible art skills. It's uncoated, of approximately 150 to 160mm and the shutter indicates a maximum aperture of f4.5. The shutter is a T-1/200 Rapax, so it's likely a high end Wollensak.
Mechanically the camera is in reasonable condition, and the shutter is more accurate than the ones on my serviced Moskva and Ikonta 524.
Thanks for any clues as to what this is.
Here's the camera.
And the lens geometry - pardon the terrible art skills. It's uncoated, of approximately 150 to 160mm and the shutter indicates a maximum aperture of f4.5. The shutter is a T-1/200 Rapax, so it's likely a high end Wollensak.
Mechanically the camera is in reasonable condition, and the shutter is more accurate than the ones on my serviced Moskva and Ikonta 524.
Thanks for any clues as to what this is.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hi, welcome to the forum!
I'm thinking this is an old Kodak camera model, but will have to look around in my bookmarks to find a link to the correct model. It's pre-Graflex, the Graflexes had a bit better build quality. The Wollensak lens would tie in with the idea of it being an old Kodak. Both were in Rochester, NY.
Hang on, I'll go find some link!
I'm thinking this is an old Kodak camera model, but will have to look around in my bookmarks to find a link to the correct model. It's pre-Graflex, the Graflexes had a bit better build quality. The Wollensak lens would tie in with the idea of it being an old Kodak. Both were in Rochester, NY.
Hang on, I'll go find some link!
sdedalus83
Member
Thanks. Any idea what the lens is? I was thinking it's some sort of modified Cooke triplet.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hm. Can't find it.
The RF is a Kalart, the single focus knob that tucks into the housing when collapsed are key elements, as is the square and boxey VF. Is that flash a fixed one? If not, does it look genuine to the camera?
You could ask members Oftheherd, Chippy and FrankVersionTwo (who shoots 4x5's alot and lives in Rochester) to help you out.
Will you be using that? Always nice to see some shots!
The RF is a Kalart, the single focus knob that tucks into the housing when collapsed are key elements, as is the square and boxey VF. Is that flash a fixed one? If not, does it look genuine to the camera?
You could ask members Oftheherd, Chippy and FrankVersionTwo (who shoots 4x5's alot and lives in Rochester) to help you out.
Will you be using that? Always nice to see some shots!
sdedalus83
Member
I'm going to pick up some film tomorrow. I'm also on the lookout for an Epson 4870, 3200 or 2450 since my 4490 is, at best, capable of scanning only 3.25x5.
The flash seems like it was a modification. There's a hole drilled in the top of the camera which doesn't appear original.
Unfortunately the rangefinder is currently useless. I'm going to see what I can do to clean it out, but the split image is so dim that I think the coatings have eroded.
The bellows appear to be a heavy rubber material and the back is a wooden spring back with an integrated sheet of ground glass. I'll be pulling it off and giving it a good cleaning tonight.
I'd like to find a graflok back assembly and a polaroid 405 or fuji pa-145 back if I can get them cheaply. My goal is $150 or less for a basic 4x5 setup.
The flash seems like it was a modification. There's a hole drilled in the top of the camera which doesn't appear original.
Unfortunately the rangefinder is currently useless. I'm going to see what I can do to clean it out, but the split image is so dim that I think the coatings have eroded.
The bellows appear to be a heavy rubber material and the back is a wooden spring back with an integrated sheet of ground glass. I'll be pulling it off and giving it a good cleaning tonight.
I'd like to find a graflok back assembly and a polaroid 405 or fuji pa-145 back if I can get them cheaply. My goal is $150 or less for a basic 4x5 setup.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Kodak had to separate from Graflex in the twenties as a consequence of a law suit concerning anti-trust law and patent violations - at that time, press cameras still were wood bodied. This camera is positively later than that - at least early forties given the aluminium front (a material barely used by the camera industry until the war industry had made it and its machining affordable). And even later if it should be American, as US makers generally were late in switching to all-metal bodies.
The camera has rather a one-of-a-kind look to it, but the frame seems very standard factory made - that type was pioneered by Linhof and MPP but soon taken up by just about everybody else in Europe. Given the rather mismatched standard, it is rather likely that this one has seen significant repairs or modifications. As the post war economy made refurbishing spent old cameras quite a common practice in Europe (and particularly the UK, whose taxation put a stop to purchasing new cameras from abroad well into the fifties), my guess is at a pre war European field camera with a post war press camera style replacement bed and front standard, and Kalart finder, probably rebuilt in the UK.
Last edited:
sdedalus83
Member
Here's my first shot. I took 4, didn't check the film holder prior to loading, and loaded this one backwards on top of some ancient kodak film, scratching it all to hell in the process. The other shot from this holder ended up falling out and grabbed the wrong sheet off the floor. Then I loaded two sheets from the one holder I hadn't exposed yet. So, out of my first six sheets, one ended up exposed outside the holder, two ended up unexposed, two have yet to be developed, and the sixth is here, in all it's scratched up, overdeveloped, focused-on-the-wrong-thing glory.
HP5+ @250 f9.5 1/110. HC-110 Dil. H 9 minutes at 27 degrees.
Scanned with an Epson 4490 at 3200 dpi. The image is limited by the width of the transparency adapter to 2.68"x4.76" producing an image of 8587x15235. Reducing to 2400 and enlarging back to 3200 had no impact, reducing to 2000 and englarging back to 3200 reduced detail. When I save it it'll be at 2400dpi.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/45test.jpg?t=1306018250
And a 100% crop of something which ended up in focus.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/45testcrop.png?t=1306017321
The 4 I have drying now are from my second batch of shots and they all look considerably better.
HP5+ @250 f9.5 1/110. HC-110 Dil. H 9 minutes at 27 degrees.
Scanned with an Epson 4490 at 3200 dpi. The image is limited by the width of the transparency adapter to 2.68"x4.76" producing an image of 8587x15235. Reducing to 2400 and enlarging back to 3200 had no impact, reducing to 2000 and englarging back to 3200 reduced detail. When I save it it'll be at 2400dpi.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/45test.jpg?t=1306018250
And a 100% crop of something which ended up in focus.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/45testcrop.png?t=1306017321
The 4 I have drying now are from my second batch of shots and they all look considerably better.
1948nikon
Established
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I considered that too, but did not find any model that looked like it online... Still interested in the end-it-all answer!
oftheherd
Veteran
Thanks for the mention. However, I am very challenged regarding 4x5. I have dabbled some with 9x12, but wouldn't even consider myself an expert on those.
Chippy hasn't been posting much lately, but has more knowledge of old cameras than most people you will run across. Hopefully he will see this and chime in. FrankVersionTwo may also be able to help. Sevo has already posted,, and is another very knowledgeable person.
More photos of the camera would no doubt help, showing the bottom, sides, and back.
EDIT: I meant to ask about the RF. It looks rounded on top more like a Hugo Meyer I have than a Kalart, but I can't tell from your photo. Does it have an adjustment for different lenses?
Last edited:
sdedalus83
Member
http://s573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/
The bellows were repaired at one point, with the entire assembly covered in a plastic sheeting. It might have been for weather proofing as well.
I think I might have put the center lens element in backward. A bit too much distortion moving toward the edge of the frame at f8.
EDIT: Yep, I did. Comparing the markings on the edge of the elements to the picture I took before disassembling it, they're reversed. :facepalm:
I've also realized that it isn't my poor technique and eyesight causing the back focus. The ground glass is set too deeply in its holder, by probably 2 or 3 millimeters, to correspond with the film plane.
And here are WIP pictures of the polaroid pack film adapter I found in the junk bit at the local photo store.
I've learned very quickly that battery powered dremel tools suck.
The bellows were repaired at one point, with the entire assembly covered in a plastic sheeting. It might have been for weather proofing as well.
I think I might have put the center lens element in backward. A bit too much distortion moving toward the edge of the frame at f8.
EDIT: Yep, I did. Comparing the markings on the edge of the elements to the picture I took before disassembling it, they're reversed. :facepalm:
I've also realized that it isn't my poor technique and eyesight causing the back focus. The ground glass is set too deeply in its holder, by probably 2 or 3 millimeters, to correspond with the film plane.
And here are WIP pictures of the polaroid pack film adapter I found in the junk bit at the local photo store.
I've learned very quickly that battery powered dremel tools suck.
Last edited:
sdedalus83
Member
After flipping the cemented pair, corner sharpness has dramatically improved. Unfortunately the back focus issue will need to be resolved before I can shoot anything close or at wide apertures.
Here's a shot at f32.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/f32test.jpg
Finally something's in focus.
And a 100% crop of the top right corner.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/cornercrop.png
I took an identical shot at f5.6, but everything's out of focus. Despite that, you can tell that there's much less distortion than before.
Now to find a complete graflok back assembly and a couple of grafmatic holders on the cheap.
Here's a shot at f32.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/f32test.jpg
Finally something's in focus.
And a 100% crop of the top right corner.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/cornercrop.png
I took an identical shot at f5.6, but everything's out of focus. Despite that, you can tell that there's much less distortion than before.
Now to find a complete graflok back assembly and a couple of grafmatic holders on the cheap.
oftheherd
Veteran
As I said, I'm not familiar with 4x5 in general, and especially the Crowns. But I wondered if you have a fresnel screen and if so, is it in backwards? That might account for oof you talked about.
sdedalus83
Member
No fresnel screen, just ground glass. The ground surface is about 2mm further from the lens than the film. Since the holders are ancient and crappy, I'll just glue spacers to them.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
You'll have to downsize to quarter plate (2 1/4x3 1/4") then - there are no 9x12 Graflok backs! 9x12 "international" holders are outwardly 4x5", and either are twice the area of the 9x12 sheet metal holders popular on German cameras - so cameras for the latter are quite significantly smaller. The German 4x5" equivalent was 10x15cm, and even there a international 4x5" back can be a tight fit due to the bigger wooden international holders with their wide margin.
sdedalus83
Member
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Has it? Sheet metal or international/spring?
sdedalus83
Member
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/sdedalus83/Photo/CIMG5876.jpg
That's what it looks like. I don't know enough to answer your question. 2 of the holders are graphic 4x5.
That's what it looks like. I don't know enough to answer your question. 2 of the holders are graphic 4x5.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
As I mentioned before, I am 4x5 challenged, but I am not familiar with that back. Is something missing, or is that OK?
sdedalus83
Member
Yeah, that's just without the focusing panel.
Well, the camera is most certainly one pieced together from spare parts. Basically 4 poorly welded aluminum panels forming a box without bottom and top, the back, and a poorly hinged front cover. The front standard assembly; however, is quite well made, and the focusing rails seem on par with most other press cameras. I think from here I'll replace the bellows, mount the rails on a sheet of plywood, and do something with the back to give me some movement.
Well, the camera is most certainly one pieced together from spare parts. Basically 4 poorly welded aluminum panels forming a box without bottom and top, the back, and a poorly hinged front cover. The front standard assembly; however, is quite well made, and the focusing rails seem on par with most other press cameras. I think from here I'll replace the bellows, mount the rails on a sheet of plywood, and do something with the back to give me some movement.