Rangefinder Stereo Cameras

[Vince Lupo]

Um, stereo cameras are supposed to come in pairs, right?


Stereoflektoskop by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Hmm glass plate - what have I gotten myself into 🙂

 

[Graybeard]

I'm also a fan of 35mm stereo photography.

My first stereo camera was a Revere Stereo, given to me by a relative in law who found it in her attic. The Revere had the common film advance malfunction. At the time (circa 2001) there was a well respected guru in Sacramento (whose name completely escapes me just now) who would put a Revere right for quite a decent price; I sent him the camera and it came back in fine form.

For the most part, for stereo, I use a Realist 3.5 or 2.8 (inexpensive , $25 per when I bought them and easy to ungum a shutter). To maximize the Stereo effect I generally shoot outdoors in sunshine and the lens is well stopped down from its maximum aperture.

There was a stretch about 2002 when I sent my transparency film to District Photo in Washington DC (memory again fails me but I think the mailing address was Glo-Color labs). The stereo shots were returned to me in Realist Stereo cardboard mounts.

I posted my pleasant surprise on this, and other folks, who asked, reported that District Photo denied providing such a service. Nonetheless, I received four or five rolls in stereo mounts. No explanation and it didn't last forever

Been a while now and these days I insist that Dwaynes return my transparencies uncut and I mount them here.

I comment that a couple a stereo shots of the mutual grandkids together with a cheapie slide viewer makes a pleasant stocking stuffer for ones in-law parents

Good light all-

 

[Vince Lupo]

Got my first stereo film back from Dwayne's yesterday.


First Stereo Slides by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Overall I'm really pleased with the way they turned out. The exposures look about right, focus seems more or less okay, there is a little bit of frame overlap a few times (not sure if that can be remedied?), but generally speaking all is good.

It took me a bit of figuring out to determine which was the left slide and which was the right side -- know how I realized I had some backwards? When looking through the viewer, if the 3D-ness of the image seems inverted (things in the background look in front of things in the foreground), I then would switch the frames and all fell into place. Just had to remind myself that the lower numbered frame was the right, the higher numbered frame on the left. Was pretty much the complete opposite of what I thought it would be.

I'm waiting to get the two cameras back from Frank and will then take them on a short Southern road trip. Going to also try my hand at some of Jason Lane's glass plates in the Voigtlander. The multi-frame glass plate back seems to work fine, but I found out another lesson -- in order for it to 'cycle' properly (it's a 12-exposure plate back), all 12 septums need to be in back, otherwise it will jam. I'm sure that's how a lot of these thin metal septums got damaged. Takes me back to all those old 4"x5" Grafmatic backs I used to use -- ah those were the days.

Here's another thing I discovered about those Revere slides -- you don't need the 'proper' Revere etc viewer in order to view them. I picked up one of these little pairs of 'Owl Viewers' from Brian May's company, and they work just great. For $10 they're more than worth it.


Owl Viewer by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[farlymac]

Twelve plates at once...that's going to add some heft to it.


PF

 

[Ambro51]

Yes it looks like you’ve got them mounted correctly. Look into your film openings in the camera. The right hand opening will have a notch. All stereo 35s (except the first few thousand stereo Realists) have this. This is how you tell frames apart. Your left mounted slide will show ‘less” info on the left side. ••••. Now that you’ve posted beautiful stereo images on a computer screen you see why stereo will Not have a revival. Enjoy, did you get a single light LED bulb for yourgood viewer? A big help with senics, not too much with people pics

 

[Vince Lupo]

No I just have the standard bulb. I see the LED bulb available online - I may get it or just stick with what I have for the time being.

Right now Frank Marshman has both the Revere and the Heidoscop, hopefully I’ll have them back next week.

Actually if you have one of the inexpensive ‘owl’ viewers as pictured above, you can look at the stereo images on your computer, iPad etc. I just discovered that the Library of Congress has all these wonderful stereo images on their website and - for the most part - I can get the full stereo effect with those viewers.

I have to say that, prior to having ‘discovered’ stereo, I never gave any thought to getting back into film. I tried twice before and didn’t honestly have the motivation. Stereo photography has rekindled that lost interest in film, which isn’t a bad thing.

 

[Pherdinand]

i just made a saddening discovery🙂)
i thought my 6x13 rolleidoscop (similar to the heidoscop here above) would make 6x13 negs or slides with the right frame to frame distance so, slides i can just view as they are, and negs i can contact print in pairs as they are.
But actually that's wrong as each single frame (not each double frame) is rotated upside down by the lens so in order to rotate them back correctly i will have to cut them up into single frames, then re-align them lol
Or otherwise i will print them just upside down backwards- if there's no text i could get away with it?

is this correct or am i making a mistake?

by the way if you look at the drawing i made, crosseyed, you can see the shapes popping out into 3d 🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

i just made a saddening discovery🙂)
i thought my 6x13 rolleidoscop (similar to the heidoscop here above) would make 6x13 negs or slides with the right frame to frame distance so, slides i can just view as they are, and negs i can contact print in pairs as they are.
But actually that's wrong as each single frame (not each double frame) is rotated upside down by the lens so in order to rotate them back correctly i will have to cut them up into single frames, then re-align them lol
Or otherwise i will print them just upside down backwards- if there's no text i could get away with it?

is this correct or am i making a mistake?

by the way if you look at the drawing i made, crosseyed, you can see the shapes popping out into 3d 🙂

So then does the left frame become the right and the right become the left in order to work properly?

 

[Ambro51]

Yes. Basics of Stereo 101. On your strip of negs, the right side mage becomes the left side mounted transparency. Same with contact prints from the German camera. Print as normal and switch sides to mount. The left side shows less of the image than the right.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Twelve plates at once...that's going to add some heft to it.


PF

Mmm not really. The total weight of the camera is about 3 lbs. the back is 1 lb 6 oz of that 3 lbs - the glass itself weighs very little.

I found a bummed-out Voigtlander 12 exposure glass plate back on eBay, but it had 10 good septums, so I snapped that up. The back that came with the camera now works perfectly. Just waiting on the glass plates from Jason!

 

[Ambro51]

You could two sided tape attach sheet film to properly sized glass. What’s called picture frame glass is thin and would work. Heck, you can tape printing paper on and shoot a paper neg. FuN

 

[Vince Lupo]

You could two sided tape attach sheet film to properly sized glass. What’s called picture frame glass is thin and would work. Heck, you can tape printing paper on and shoot a paper neg. FuN

I don't think that picture frame glass will fit in these septums - this glass is about half that thickness (these are about 1mm, picture frame glass is 2mm-2.5mm). Luckily there were two old glass plates in this Voigtlander back, so it's helpful I can physically see what they originally looked like. Actually, you just reminded me that I should check with Jason Lane to verify the glass thickness he uses!

I was considering doing something with sheet film, have to figure out what's the best course of action for that. I'm just really happy that this multi-plate back works!

A propos of nothing, check out this little sweetie:


Nil Melior1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Nil Melior4 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Nil Melior5 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Fixed-focus with a 120 back, 7 shutter speeds (about 1/2 second to 1/125). 'Nil Melior' is Latin for 'None Better'! The abbreviation BTE S.G.D.G stands for Breveté Sans Garantie Du Gouvernement, or Patent Without Government Guarantees.

Very little info is available about the maker, Macris-Boucher, but I managed to find some interesting info about the lens maker (Boyer). At the time these lenses were made (early 1920's), the company had all of 6 employees. Their chief lens designer was Suzanne Lévy-Bloch (wife of the owner of the company), likely one of the first women optical engineers in France.

 

[Ambro51]

Does it appear to have indicated wear at the tripod mount? To me it appears clumsy in hand, but I’ve not held one. Please let us know regarding the new dry plates thickness....I’m sure he’s nailed this though. Boyer lenses are A+++.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Does it appear to have indicated wear at the tripod mount? To me it appears clumsy in hand, but I’ve not held one. Please let us know regarding the new dry plates thickness....I’m sure he’s nailed this though. Boyer lenses are A+++.

I'll find out in a couple of weeks when it arrives (coming from Europe). I suppose the fact that it's basically a point and shoot (fixed focus) might help in the handling department. If you look at other photos of these Nil Melior cameras, you might see a few with these rather large lens hoods/covers/visors. I'm getting a friend of mine to replicate one - it's pretty much just a piece of thick sheet metal that is bent into a wide U shape, with two rounded corners and three little holes (two for the camera mounts, one for the shutter release button). Should hopefully be straightforward.

I got some updates on the Heidoscop -- the back has light leaks, so we're in the process of chasing them all down. There's a possibility that it might just be from the little number window/door - hopefully that will be the only one!


Aren't these pretty!

Heidoscop Lenses by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Oh and I did ask Jason this morning about his glass plate thickness, and they're 1.3mm. He's pretty confident they'll work just fine.

 

[Ambro51]

Back in the day transpositional viewers were made. Now, if you can succeed reversal processing the dry plates, you’d have the setup nailed. Ask the platemaker about reversal processing...

 

[Derek Leath]

I'm one of those people who can view the stereo slides and cards without a viewer, just by focusing past the image and then bringing them back together.
So, Vince I could see your images in stereo on screen.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I'm one of those people who can view the stereo slides and cards without a viewer, just by focusing past the image and then bringing them back together.
So, Vince I could see your images in stereo on screen.

Yeah funny you say that -- I just tried it and it works! You have to pretty much cross your eyes and get close to the computer screen, but as you pull away from the screen it pops into 3D. Takes a bit of practice.

I'll see if I can scan the slides and post them larger.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Try this -- it worked perfectly when viewed through my Brian May 'Lite Owl 3D Viewer'.


Riley in Stereo2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I found that if I make the image too large on the screen, it doesn't work.

 

[Derek Leath]

Try this -- it worked perfectly when viewed through my Brian May 'Lite Owl 3D Viewer'.
Riley in Stereo2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I found that if I make the image too large on the screen, it doesn't work.

This works great also. I focus past the screen, so I don't cross my eyes.
It's like you are looking past the screen. Relax your eyes then the images will come together.

 

[Spavinaw]

I learned to free view stereo as a kid without even trying. We had a shed window with large pattern screen wire in it. Turns out the screen wire pattern had the same spacing as
between my eyes. When I looked outside, I not only saw everything outside in focus, but I also saw a large image of the screen wire sort of floating before me. Obviously, one eye was looking through one opening in the wire and the other eye was looking through a different opening, and my brain was putting them together. How 'bout that!