robert_johnson11

Hi, Brian,

I agree, the Deardorff is popular enough that many other field cameras do borrow heavily from its basic design. This may be a holdover from the days 40-50 years ago when the only choices in American large-format cameras were pretty much the Deardorff, on the high end, and the Burke and James. The Deardorff carried its quality reputation forward, and the B&J (undeservedly, in my view) still has a reputation as being a poor quality camera. It is true that many name photographers of the era used Deardorffs, so much of their collector appeal may stem from this fact. Frankly, this 'logic' escapes me - maybe they used Deardorffs because that was all that was available to them. Also, famous names presumably always did, and still do, sell products - get some star athlete or movie celebrity to endorse a product and it must do wonders for sales. Personally I fail to understand this; would you ever consider buying a deodorant stick or a frying pan because Mr. or Ms. Celebrity endorses it? I would never consider it, but millions of people do, however.

You asked about the things I consider to be design flaws in the Deardorff. Well, when a number of them come into the shop with the same problems, I consider these to be things that could have used improvement. These include:

(1) The base or bed. These are visually attractive, being made up of 4 triangle-shaped pieces of wood. But they are notoriously unstable and prone to crack, both at glue joints and down through the pieces themselves; and they also tend to not remain flat. Presumably the circular aluminum tripod plate that Deardorff introduced was a way to reinforce these. Deardorff fans probably think that the base is made that way to be esthetically pleasing; my own take is that it was a way to economically use up small pieces of wood. They were also glued with the animal glues available in their day, which are prone to failure, but also difficult to remove for re-gluing with a modern adhesive. It is difficult to repair these, where they have shrunk, and opened up good-size cracks; if you try to pull them back together, your base ceases to be rectangular and square! These were assembled with tiny mortises and tenons which being the weakest part are inevitably where the breaks occur, when they happen at joints. I have even had to inlay 3/16-inch wide strips in the cracks to take up for the shrinkage. This of course not only affects the appearance but immediately tells one that the camera is not factory-original.

From the stability standpoint, plywood would be the better material for a camera base. But it has the problems of the appearance of the edges. The older field camera builders used multiple laminations with grain running in opposite directions, and not out to the edges, which is the best system from both the stability and apperarance standpoints. (Lensboards traditionally are made the same way.)

(2) Dissimilar metals. The Deardorff uses a mix of steel, brass and aluminum for the metal parts. The steel is usually found with the original nickle plate flaking off, and rust forming. The brass is also nickle-plated but usually in much better condition with no underplate rust. Few plating shops will do nickle plate these days and in any event it is expensive. It can be done with a home kit, but in either event it is labor intensive. And if you replate just the steel parts where the plate is damaged, they come out so much brighter that the rest of the original plate looks bad by comparison, so you wind up doing (or wishing you had done) all the metal parts of the camera!

Then there is the problem of the front standard. Those Deardorffs with front swings have a swing plate made of aluminum. I have never, but never, seen one of these that was not bent upward from tightening the locking knobs down. I believe that aluminum is an inappropriate material for the task - brass or steel would have been a better choice.

(3) The lensboard. If you have and use several field and view cameras, unless they are all Deardorff cameras, those rounded-corner lensboards mean that you must have extra lensboards with lens flange rings for each of your lenses, if you want to use them on both Deardorff and non-Deardorff cameras. I see no benefit to having a rounded-corner lensboard; yet they are a bit more labor-intensive to build, hence cost more.

Bear in mind that the cameras I see are those that come in for repair or restoration; obviously there are Deardorff and other cameras out there that have not suffered these problems to the same extent. My comments are based on engineering considerations. From that standpoint, a much-overlooked field camera that I think highly of is the 1920-30's Agfa-Ansco. These are as heavy as Deardorffs, more stable, have bigger lensboards which happily accept the older lenses and process lenses that are such teriffic buys these days, and their metal parts are usually homogenous. Some A-A cameras have 8" square lensboards! The older ones with all-brass hardware restore beautifully; with the wood refinished to a rich chocolate and the brass buffed and lacquered, they often turn out to be so attractive that photographers tell me they are "too pretty to take out in the field!" Agfa-Ansco and many B&J cameras were often painted with a gray paint. This is difficult to remove, and is unattractive in any event, so many do not realize how lovely these cameras can be when refinished. They have a plethora of movements, and damp vibrations quite effectively. A-A cameras were made in 5x7 and 8x10 versions and in my one-on-one photography classes, I recommend them to the beginner who doesn't have an unlimited camera budget for a new Wisner or Ebony. After they have used them for awhile, they lose much of their former desire for a 'higher-end' field camera!

Best wishes,

Robert

Ken, I have repaired, but not used, any of the new Gandolfi cameras, so my comments may be like comparing apples to oranges. But I do use as my main 8x10 camera an older Gandolfi, made in the 1950's by the Brothers when they were still alive and active.

My company restores older wood field and view cameras, so virtually all the new and old makes (except an Ebony!) have gone through our shop and through my hands, and I have used them all. We have probably restored two dozen 8x10 Deardorff cameras this year alone. (I fail to understand their cult-like following; they have various design flaws!) We have even custom-built cameras in non-=standard formats and made vertical-format 12x20's. I used a Wisner Technical Field for some time but found it awkward, clumsy and heavy; the Gandolfi is the 'ultimate' 8x10 - at least for me. I shoot both technical and landscape. The Gandolfi craftsmanship is superb. I made a 5x7 back for mine. Now, they do not have the range of movements that other field cameras have; if you need these, they are probably not for you. I have yet to encounter a photo situation where I absolutely could not make the necessary adjustments, however.

On the other hand, three modern Gandolfi 4x5 cameras have come into my shop for repairs - in every case, they were new cameras, i.e. not more than a month or so in use, and in every case the base was broken. One was repaired and broke again a week later - they are a bit tricky to fold up without this happening.

Obviously, I am quite partial to the older Gandolfi cameras and keep scanning eBay, etc. for another one that I can afford, to have as a backup.

I also have what is left of a Wisner 12x20 - that is, I bought it complete with all the reducing backs, but have had to modify it completely to make it useful for my photography. I replaced the entire front standard so it would take large (8" x 8") lensboards with room for big lenses; and built a vertical-format back for it so thtat it could be used in both positions. It is a huge and heavy camera, but useful when I have a helper along for a photo shoot.

The older Gandolfi cameras are extremely popular all over Europe, both with photographers and collectors, though they seem to be much less appreciated here in the US. Personally, I would suggest you look for one - or at least look at one and then at the new Variants and handle them a bit; see how they suit your photographic style. You might come to the same conclusion.

Good luck!!

Robert

Greetings all,

I shoot 5x7, 8x10 and 12x20 landscape and industrial photos, and just

completed (after a year of headaches and heartaches and 40 years of

using substitutes) a new darkroom, with enough room for once! In it I

have just set up a condenser-head 10x10 Saltzman enlarger and am

preparing to give it a trial run. It was rebuilt (by our shop; we do

LF camera restorations, etc.) and is a truly beautifully built piece

of machinery, if one only has enough ceiling height and strong enough

floors!

Recently while cleaning out a commercial darkroom from a local company

that was going out of business, I acquired a small device called an

Lum-O-Tron. It is model Tron-L, serial number 1162, built by the

Alignotron Corp. I can find nothing on the Internet about it;

presumably the company is out of business? The owner of the shop said

that it was used to align their enlargers, but he never used it and

couldn't find any instruction manuals for it. He had, in fact, thrown

it into the wastebasket, where I spotted it! (He also had thrown out

100, 500-sheet boxes of Kodak paper; that's another story too

depressing to relate!)

It measures 2-1/4 inches wide x 8 inches long, has a meter reading

0-20 on both sides of a center zero, plus a knob reading 0-70 which

turns it on. It is battery powered. At the far end there is a small

laser that apparently projects its beam through a marked target on the

top up into the enlarger. I replaced the battery and this laser lights

when turned on.

Does anyone know how to use this device, and/or where to obtain

instructions?

Many thanks,

Robert

I have been using Nikon Apo-Nikkor

process lenses in all focal lengths

from 150mm to 1870mm for years

now. Remember that though they

were discontinued in 1984, they were

the top-of-the-line glass made at the

time and cost in the thousands of

dollars. They are probably the best

bargains going in apo lenses today, if

you can live with the fact that they

are all in barrels and above 455mm

are very hard to fit to shutters. In

fact, fitting to shutters is NOT

recommended, as that will knock off

the fine edge of sharpness these

lenses are famous for. Presumably if

you are interested in them, you are

interested in sharpness, and if you

shoot a fine-grain slow film, you can

use a spare darkslide or equivalent

as the 'shutter' a la the 19th century.

The results will astound you!

<p>

300mm and larger Apo-Nikkors will

cover 8x10 with some room for

movements.

<p>

Robert