How much should a camera be re-built.

[ColRay]

How much should a camera be re-built.

My oldest camera is a whole plate ( 8 1/2 X 6 1/2 ")Blair Tourograph circa 1880 .. Okay only part of this camera is original, when it was purchased it looked a very sad camera. The front focus track was missing, no lens on lens board,the rear and front stands where both broken, plate holder and focusing screen where missing. the tilting mechanics on the centre stand had been butchered. The one part that you thought would have been beyond repair, the bellows...in first class condition .

There was no way I would even consider buying a 130 year old lens, so I have used a Rodenstock Imagon portrait lens .

The camera and paper negative print.




pic hosting

 

[Rick58]

Nice restoration! I love these wooden field cameras

 

[BrianV]

I usually go for restore to working condition to that a camera or lens can be used for Photography. If you want to donate to a museum, go for all original.

The camera is beautiful, and ding what it was made for. That's a win. For 130 year old lenses: sometimes you bump into them at antique stores and Photorama shows. Keep an eye open.

 

[sm4him]

Yeah, it all depends on whether you are going for beautiful, but still functional, as you seem to be doing, or attempting to restore to an "original" condition. If you want it to truly be just like it originally was, you'd want the 130-year old lens even if it isn't optically as good.

Since I'm no expert (or even an amateur) at camera restoration, I really have no useful insight. But the thread title caught my eye because it reminds me of one of my very favorite stories about my dad:

My dad was an extremely NON-sentimental person--the personal memorabilia he kept through his 82 years of life would have fit in a shoebox--DID fit in a shoebox, actually. An autograph book from grade school, a map of Alaska from when he was stationed there in WWII (NO other military keepsakes, just the map)...and a hammer. My grandfather's hammer.

That hammer was really my Dad's prized possession, because it was "Daddy Mac's hammer." I suppose that to my dad it symbolized the approval his father-in-law--a construction/engineer/handyman/country sort of guy--had bestowed upon my father, who'd grown up in Brooklyn, NY, knew nothing about construction and very nearly as much about farming.
Dad would let you borrow just about anything he owned--heck, he'd GIVE you just about anything he owned if you wanted it. Except for that hammer.

But then one day I found out that the handle had been replaced since my grandfather had owned it. As had the hammer head itself. :lmao:
Since there are only TWO parts to a hammer, and they'd both been replaced, I found it highly amusing that it was still so precious to him because it was "Daddy Mac's hammer."

To this day, our family calls pretty much anything that has been so significantly altered as to have nothing original left, "Daddy Mac's hammer." And it sounds to me like once the bellows go on that beautiful old camera you've got, you're going to end up with the "Daddy Mac's hammer" of cameras.

 

[ColRay]

Thanks

smfourhim nice story

 

[IanG]

I go for restorations that are as faithful to how the camera would have looked and worked originally, that means making missing or broken parts to match, I'll also try to find a lens that would have been sold or used with the camera.

For practical reasons I make new lens boards to use more modern lens, and I make adapters to allow the use of International DDS (film holders) or roll film backs. More recently I've begun making new spare backs, first to allow the use of 5"x4" sheet film with a Half plate camera, I'm making it Graflok compatible as well.

Essentially though I restore to nice, useable condition while retaining the patina of use, I would never try to make a wood & brass camera look like new.

Ian