Vintage photography

[Jack Armstrong]

I will be using this . . .

. . . along with the camera shown in my above post.

Does anyone know the light situations for using it "hood closed," "hood open" or "hood off"?
That's the only thing that confuses me about it.

Lee

It's simple. For low-light situations, you want the photocell to receive more of the incoming light, so you open the slotted gate on the front of the meter, and take your readings using the "open" red triangle on the dial. When the light is stronger, you close the slotted gate and take your readings using the "closed" red triangle.

The "hood" is the entire front end of the meter, which is held by a metal clip and can be removed by pulling. At that point, you have an incident meter, which is used to measure the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflected from it. Incident readings are something you'll probably not use very often, so you can safely ignore that aspect of your meter till you're more familiar with the concepts involved.

It's a bit of a kludge anyway. Personally, I don't consider the 68 very good in incident mode. When you get to the point where you really want a good vintage incident meter, find a Norwood Director. And make sure the little bright-light insert filter is present (they're easily lost).

I've been collecting antique 35mm cameras for about 15 years, and I've got three DW-68s (and one of its earlier cousins, the DW-58) All of them are dead accurate and easy to use. And I didn't pay more than $5 for any of them.

If you really want accuracy, look for a Weston Master II or III. These meters were high-end hardware in their day, and if they were properly cared for, they'll perform just as well today.

My wife and I used to have a business selling photos at arts festivals, and all my photos were taken with my antique cameras. My favorite is my 1952 Nicca (best of the Leica clones), with 50mm, 35mm and 100mm lenses. But other cameras I've used professionally are a Univex Mercury II and a Kodak Signet 35.

I'm consistently amazed that so many folks these days find f-stops and time settings intimidating, or the use of a light meter some sort of incomprehensible voodoo. It's all really very basic and simple, and anyone who can get their hands on an introductory photography book from earlier than about 1970 will be able to pick it up very quickly. Earlier generations had no trouble with it.

Another great source of information is vintage photography magazines from about 1940 through about 1955. I grab these whenever I can find them, either online or at flea markets and antique malls. They will not only demystify many of the features on your antique cameras, they'll show you how those cameras were used and give you plenty of example photos to emulate.

One place to find vintage photo equipment is:

Robert G. Pins
10 John Circle
PO Box 406
Norwood, NJ 07648
USA

He deals exclusively in antique cameras and accessories. I've dealt with him off and on for about ten years, and have always been satisfied. He hasn't got a website, so drop him a line and ask for his catalogue, which he issues every couple of months.

There are also online dealers, such as Pacific Rim (with which I've never dealt, so I can't comment on them):

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/

A few minutes with any search engine will turn up more.

Good luck, and enjoy!

 

[Lucky Strike]

Here's a few Leicas and other stuff of varying age, quality and pedigree, for the classic shutterbugs:

 

[Lucky Strike]

A few more:

 

[Lucky Strike]

And the last lot:

 

[PrinceHarming]

I have that same exact camera, and the light meter that goes with it. I found them in my attic. Along with a Rolleiflex and some other kind of Kodak. I also Have the tripod that goes with this one. and fits the other two.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

My Graphics Camera.

That is a very impressive collection, Lucky Strike. I am impressed.

PrinceHarming, please show them!

Lucky, this is in my storage. No lens board or focus screen, so I've often thought about getting some glass and turning it into a coffee table. There's another section to the rail that's almost as long as the base you see. It's about seven feet long when fully extended, and there's a small door on the center section (not visible in this photo).

Lee

 

[Lucky Strike]

Alas, not my collection. Just the huge studio cameras would fill a room, and the old Leicas can be very pricey. It's stuff I've handled at the place I work.

Are there any markings on your studio camera? I remember I was able to find quite a lot of information about the ones that are pictured above. It looks quite similar to the one in my second picture. IIRC, that one was a model from the 1910's.

The coffee-table idea is cool!

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Wow! What kind of work do you do that affords you the opportunity to view such wonderful items? The second one in your first post is imressive! I love the wood and the fold-away extension rail.

It's been a while since I last looked at it closely, but I don't remember anything other than (maybe) a small sticker somewhere on it that's hard to read, and a few numbers stamped into the wood at one or two places. I'd have to dig it out again and look.

And to make it a table: The only hindrance is the tabs on the front that hold the lens board - they angle up at the ends. But those would be easily defeated by simply using thick (or doubling up some) felt feet on the bottom side of the intended glass top. I would not adhere anything to to camera itself.

I also have this Calumet 4X5. A friend owed me $75.00 about twenty years ago, so he gave it to me. It has a 165mm f:6.3 No.6170 Ilex-Calumet Caltar lens. It's complete and, except for a small chip in a corner of the focusing screen (which you can't see unless you remove the screen), nothing is broken and it works. I've never used it.

Another view. Unfortunately, I was shooting some Kitty Porn at the time.

Lee

 

[Mojave Jack]

I knew I'd find the right folks to ask here on the Lounge! I'm trying to find a camera for my archeological demonstrations. I'm basing the talk on the work of William and Elizabeth Campbell, who worked extensively in what is now Joshua Tree National Park in the 1920s and 1930s documenting sites. I'm setting up an entire dig site, circa 1936, so I can discuss how archeology was done in Bill and Betty's time, and use that to frame my talk about the couple's work in the park.

I don't know what kind of camera Elizabeth actually used, but I would assume it would be a common type. I'd like something period primarily for a prop, but I'd prefer it if it actually worked. I don't know much about photography (though I'm willing to learn!) so it should be something that is relatively easy to use. In an archeological context, it would have been used primarily for shots of the site, so I suppose a tripod would be in order.

So my questions are:

1. What sort of camera should I look for?

2. What sort of things should I look out for, quality and function-wise?

3. How much should one run?

4. What other sorts of accoutrements will I need?

I did a search on Voigtlander after I saw your post, dhermann, and saw a number of nice looking folding bellows-type cameras from the 30's. They'd make a nice prop since they evoke the age, but will they still take pictures, and are they difficult to use?

Thanks!

 

[MrBern]

Some of the zeiss Ikonta's are pretty sweet.
I believe some of the famous Dustbowl shots were taken with one

 

[Mojave Jack]

Those are nice! I looked up a couple, though, and they may be a bit out of my price range. There was a nice 35mm that was only about $70, but even that may be a bit much, since I don't really know what I'm doing yet!

Who knows, this may turn into yet another expensive hobby... Oh, my wife is gonna kill me.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Keep in mind that 35mm "miniature" cameras were not yet taken seriously for most significant applications at that time. Chances are, a 4x5 or 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 sheet film camera, like a Speed Graphic or Graphlex, or a 120 rollfilm camera, like a folder (better Kodak, Zeiss Ikonta, Voightlander, etc.) or twin-lens reflex (Rolleiflex), would have been used.

Working samples of all of these kinds of cameras are easy to find, and much cheaper than they were a decade ago. It's the support for their film and processing that's starting to get dicey as the digital-imaging juggernaut rolls on...

(My dad learned photography back in the late 30s, and started on rollfilm and 4x5 cameras. He didn't even own a 35mm camera until the 1950s, and in our commercial business, he only began to trust 35mm for certain "customer uses" [vs. family pictures] in the mid-60s when we got our first Nikkormat.)

 

[Mojave Jack]

I've seen a number of 120s available for reasonable prices, and from some posts above that seems to be a readily available film. Are the 4x5 or 2.25x3.25 film formats still available? I think I have a bunch of negatives in the 2.5x3.5 format in my archives. They're all individual and in little paper sleeves. Were they all individual negatives?

Are there any film sizes I should really avoid due to scarcity?

If I got one of the bellows type cameras and the bellows leak light, are they difficult or expensive to replace?

Mr. Bern, how expensive or difficult is it to do the overhaul you were speaking of? Do they have to be sent off to do that, or is it something that a reasonably competent camera shop can handle?

 

[Mojave Jack]

Well, I pulled the trigger on this little number over the weekend.

It is a Braun-Praxar with a 105mm lens. The price was right, and it seems to be in pretty good shape.

No idea what the film size is, but I guess we'll see when it arrives. I took a chance that it was a 120 or something else I can actually find, but at the worst I'm out $20 and have a good prop.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Certainly, it's just fine for prop purposes. That's a good attitude: given the chances that it requires an obsolete size film, has an inoperative shutter or aperture, or that the bellows are no longer light-tight, there's a good chance that it won't be a good "shooter" (vs. a display piece).

Oh, and sorry I didn't answer your questions yesterday - I couldn't get my kids off the computer!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Anyone else here use a box Brownie? When I was little I inherited my grandmother's Brownie No. 2, circa the mid-twenties, and used it to earn my Photographer badge in Girl Scouts. Very simple little thing with mirror viewfinders, a leaf shutter, and fixed focus, but it took very nice pictures using 120 film -- which when I was using it could still be found at the drugstore. I still have the camera, but I haven't seen the film in drugstores for a long time...

 

[MrBern]

Those are nice! I looked up a couple, though, and they may be a bit out of my price range. There was a nice 35mm that was only about $70, but even that may be a bit much, since I don't really know what I'm doing yet!

Who knows, this may turn into yet another expensive hobby... Oh, my wife is gonna kill me.

Doc Strange is right that 35mm wasnt yet considered a professional medium. But lets not forget that soem photogs did use them even then.
Cartier-Bresson being most notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartier-bresson
The Leica camera was originally devised to be used for someone on the go.
On the other end of the scale AnselAdams was using 8x10 cameras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams

in between you can still get 4x5 film for press cameras, but unless youre going to process th film yourself, it'll be a pricey hobby.
You could get a cheapo 120 camera.
or even a `30s rollei, which was definitely used by pros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolleicord

As for a cheap 35mm camera, there are russian copies of the leica for under $100.
You could find a `30s ARGUS for lunch money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_%28camera_company%29
http://www.cameraquest.com/arg2.htm

Buying a camera is one thing
getting it to work is another
knowing how to work it is yet another.

 

[MrBern]

Dont miss this older thread on Leicas
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=23329&highlight=leica

 

[Flivver]

Anyone else here use a box Brownie? When I was little I inherited my grandmother's Brownie No. 2, circa the mid-twenties, and used it to earn my Photographer badge in Girl Scouts. Very simple little thing with mirror viewfinders, a leaf shutter, and fixed focus, but it took very nice pictures using 120 film -- which when I was using it could still be found at the drugstore. I still have the camera, but I haven't seen the film in drugstores for a long time...

When I was in high school in the late 1960s, I bought a Brownie box camera for 50 cents in a junk shop. Among other things, I recorded a trip in 1969 to Greenfield Village in Michigan with this camera.

As I recall, it used 116 rollfilm which was still available back then! It took eight 2-1/2: X 4-1/4" negatives per roll. So no enlarging was needed. You could just make contact prints.

I believe that 120 rollfilm is still readily available at camera shops. It is still used in professional medium format cameras like the Hasselblad.

 

[Jack Armstrong]

Anyone else here use a box Brownie? When I was little I inherited my grandmother's Brownie No. 2, circa the mid-twenties, and used it to earn my Photographer badge in Girl Scouts. Very simple little thing with mirror viewfinders, a leaf shutter, and fixed focus, but it took very nice pictures using 120 film -- which when I was using it could still be found at the drugstore. I still have the camera, but I haven't seen the film in drugstores for a long time...

Unlikely that you'll find it in very many drugstores, as 120 has pretty much been considered a professional film for quite some time. Try a dedicated camera shop, and you'll have better luck.