View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recently aquired a Graflex Century Master Studio camera and stand. I have no information on this camera except that is is from 1920-50. Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Steve |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
No replies yet. Maybe you need some more info. I found one similar on Ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=012&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=220061249418&rd=1&rd=1
The camera is almost exactly like mine except mine has a 5 x 7 back and it's plaques don't mention Kodak or Folmer but just Graflex. My stand is a little less ornate and more substantial. The stand also has film holder shelves built in. The lens is a Kodak Commercial Ektar f:6.3 12 in. The shutter is an Ilex No.4 Acme Synchro. That's about all I know. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The first problem is that "any info" is a bit general to answer. If you want to know something specific, it might possibly be answered.
If you search the forums, the camera model has been discussed some. It's a nice, old, big, heavy studio camera. You've got a great lens on it that many would love to own. If you have a serial number and ask in that forum, you might be able to find out it's approximate manufactured date.
Other than that, it's a nice, old, big, heavy studio camera. What else would you like to know?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doug Kerr
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 177 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, Rich,
I too am very intersted in the Kodak Master Studio Camera Stand. I wondered if the casters have felt tires as were original equipment on the somewhat-similar Century 1A and 2A Semi-Centennial Stand?
Best regards,
Doug
_________________ Best regards,
Doug |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doug Kerr
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 177 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doug Kerr
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 177 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2006-12-16 23:17, RichS wrote:
. . . If you search the forums, the camera model has been discussed some. . . . |
Quite so. For example, on this forum, on 2006.08.13, "doublebungalow" writes, regarding a camera labeled as a Graflex Master Studio Camera:
"Can anyone tell me about this camera?"
Les told him not to use Armorall on the bellows.
Best regards,
Doug |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The one that Doug posted is almost identicle to mineexcept for the name plates. Mine say Graflex only. So I think that means mine is a little newer. I can't find any serial #'s. Would I have to remove it from the base to find them?
I picked it up from a United Way silent auction. It was used by a Baytown Exxon production plant that used it for id badges some years ago.
I take it that it is not uncommon and is not worth very much but I think that it is still pretty cool. I would love to be able to use it someday. I've only been into photography for a few years and only with slr's so this is new to me. Thanks for the replies.
[ This Message was edited by: Bluchip on 2006-12-18 10:30 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"not worth very much" would be arbitrary at best. It's a great camera and worth quite a bit, but compared to what? The thing that does drive down it's common price is the base. No one is willing or able to ship them so they are hard to sell.
As long as the bellows is light tight it can make photos. A big plus if the shutter works. All you really have to do is figure out the format of tha back and get film holders and film. These cameras very often had reducing backs so we don't know if it's 8x10, 5x7, 4x5 or something else? Film is easy. If you're willing to do black & white, delevoping it yourself is also easy. The only hang-up may be the back. If it's made for the older plate holders the configuration is slightly different than the newer backs. You can either modify the back or find plate holders to use.
If I had this camera, and I would love to own one, I would deffiniitely use it!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't belive I didn't mention that it had a 5x7 back and it also came with 9 film holders. So it looks like I will have to learn about b&w developing. It sounds like it would be the easiest way to go.
It also came with a couple of studio lights and a Polaroid passport camera. I guess I have no excuses not to play with it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001 Posts: 4081 Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
With the back removed, as in changing from portrait to landscape mode, what is the deminsion of the rear inside?
_________________ The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I am measuring the correct part it is 9 1/4" square. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001 Posts: 4081 Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, that just adds more confusion. Most Kodak/Graflex cameras in 8x10 format are 10 1/4 inches bellows edge to bellows edge at the rear, a couple of 6x8 plate cameras I encountered were 8 1/4 inches bellows edge to bellows edge. I've never heard of a ?x9 inch before but it could be a plate size.
What is the serial number of the 12" Ektar?
_________________ The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doug Kerr
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 177 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the 8x10 studio cameras (Century 2/7A/9A/10A and I assume the Century Master), the backhouse is much larger than on other 8x10 view cameras (such as an Eastman 2-D). (These cameras are gigantically bigger than an Eastman 2-D.)
On mine (not a Century but almost certainly just about identical), the dimensions of the inside of the backhouse into which the top-level part of the back fits are about 12-1/4" x 12-1/4".
I say "top-level part of the back" as these cameas often have a sliding back arrngement that has a board that goes into that opening in the backhouse that then carries a wider board with tracks accross which a smaller board slides that carries the actual "back" which is smaller yet (even the 8x10 back on an 8x10 camera).
_________________
Best regards,
Doug
[ This Message was edited by: Doug Kerr on 2006-12-19 19:14 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bluchip
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 9 Location: Texas
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The second picture is what I measured at 9 1/4 square. It was the inside of the sliding back. The correct inside measurement of the camera back in pic 3 is 9 3/4".
I am not sure if it's a serial # for the lens but it's the only other number I can findn but it's ES584.
[ This Message was edited by: Bluchip on 2006-12-19 18:38 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Bluchip on 2006-12-19 18:45 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|