Kodak 3A Special with Zeiss Lens

[alexkerhead]

I got this today at the market. I usually won't pay more than $5 for a kodak folder, but this one got my attention with it's large shutter and speed settings. It has 1-200 speeds. All the speeds work perfectly. The cool thing is the slow speeds are silent. The lens is a zeiss, and is really hefty. The shutter is Bausch and Lomb.
It has a F Stop setting from 6.3, and if you need to take pictures on the surface of the Sun, it goes to 45!


It has spotting on the brass plate and some rust on the shutter cock, but I plan on sand blasting the plate to a brass finish and cleaning the shutter cock and polishing it. After that, it will be in perfect condition.

Anyway, here are the pics.

[PeterW]

Nice find, Alex. It will look really great when you've attended to the cosmetics.

I'm not absolutely sure about dating it, but the curved front to the baseboard suggests it was made after 1919, and as far as I know the hood over the viewfinder was discontinued after 1921. So it looks to be 1920-1921. Perhaps a Kodak collector can add something?

I can't quite see all of the back, but it doesn't look as if it's an Autographic. If it isn't, it's one of the more rare 3A Specials as most were either made with Autographic backs or converted later by changing the back. Most Kodak dealers would change the back free if the camera was new, or for a small fee if it was used.

I think the lens is a Tessar branded for Kodak, and the shutter is a Compound made by Bausch & Lomb under licence from Deckel. The reason the slow speeds are silent is that they are controlled by an air brake, a piston in the cylinder mounted just behind the speed selector dial. If you take this piston apart for any reason remember that the inside must be cleaned only, and assembled dry. Don't use any oil because this will make it sluggish and sticky.

PeterW

[alexkerhead]

Thank you for the information, Peter!

You are right, it is not an autographic backplate. I will keep the information you provided in mind when trying to fix her up.

Alex

[PeterW]

Alex,

One thing I forgot to mention about the Compound shutter.

On some of the German made ones the shutter leaves were thin vulcanite, NOT metal. These need to be handled with EXTREME CARE because over the years the vulcanite has become very brittle and is likely to break if given even a slight bend. I don't know if this applies to the Bausch & Lomb versions, but go gently just in case.

There was another early shutter, can't remember which one now, in which the shutter leaves were made from vulcanite impregnated card. If you put alcohol or naptha (lighter fluid) of any sort on these to clean them they warp and go sticky! The most you should do is wipe them with a dampened (NOT wet) kitchen tissue with just a slight touch of plain soap if they have oil on them.

Just two of the snares and traps that lie in wait for the restorer of veteran cameras.

PeterW

[mickeyobe]

PeterW,

Could you be referring to the Lukos II shutter as found on the Aldis Carbine and Aldis Cameo?
I have both cameras. The Carbine is fine.
The Cameo, a beautiful camera formerly in very good condition has no aperture blades due to great alchemy skills on my part in turning them into a slimy, gelatinous goo when I tried to clean them with alcohol.
I learned a good lesson. Cameras should be teetotalers.


Alex,

The No. 3A Special Kodak Camera's dates are 1910 to 1914 when, by changing to an Autographic back, it became the No. 3A Autographic Kodak Special Camera which was continued until 1934.

If you should find a way to clean the metal lens mount and restore its colour please let me know. I have a couple of old Kodaks with the same skin blemishes.

Mickey

[alexkerhead]

Thanks Peter(again) and Mickey!

Mickey, I am just planning on removing the finish with my sand blaster, polishing it, and putting a coat of brass lacquer on it. I think it will be a visual improvement, making the best out of a ugly plate.

Luckily, the shutter(and leafs) are in excellent shape. Mine look like metal shutter leafs, there are three of them that close onto each other.

If you want a more "original" look, you might use ultra gloss black paint on yours. Of course, you'll need to sand blast it, sand it(800-1200 grit paper) and then apply the ultra gloss.

Edit: You could also sand the old finish off, then sand shiny with 1200grit paper and dip it in acid(or leave it in drain cleaner mixed with water - this is dangerous though) to give it a really dark finish, then spray it with a lacquer.

[mickeyobe]

Alex,

Thank you.
It sounds like a rather intimidating process.
All of a sudden I find the blemishes to be an attractive indication of antiquity.

I know some folks like to spruce up old cameras to make them look attractive, if not in the least authentic. I can't fault them.
However, although I will touch up an old camera, I always try to restore it to its original appearance. When my restoration is so good that it is not apparent I put a note in the camera or with its file stating that it has been restored.
I would be more successful with some of my restorations (touch ups) if I could only find a felt marker that did not appear red or purple when dry but showed as true black.

Mickey

[cyclops]

Now that is a nice camera! Oh i'd love to come across such a thing,lovely! Is it still usable and what film does it take?

[Andrew]

Sept 25, 2008 16:31:06 GMT -5 @cyclops said:

Now that is a nice camera! Oh i'd love to come across such a thing,lovely! Is it still usable and what film does it take?

this 3a kodak that Alex has takes 122 film (takes 3.25x5.5 image) --i am sure i have read somewhere that people do still get film or go to some lenghts to get film to fit..and alternative is to use ordinary 120 film by making a some spool extensions and masking the frame size for panoramic shots--or they take film plate backs as well if you could find one or fabricate one and use sheet film.

i have a simular camera which for some unknown reason i thought was a 3a but just never looked closely enough at it, hmm i should have simply opened the back as it stamped into it in a few locations but its a no. 3 pocket folding model C5(must of had big pockets back then!) . we just call it our harry potter camera now haha...mine looks like it take 118 film or perhaps a film back can go on it too, i'm not sure, to use 3.25x4.25 (9x12) which is still readily available. not sure what year this is but it looks earlier than Alex's. the shutter has its own little counter that activates each time the shutter is depressed counting from 1-12. what i assume is serial number is engraved into the foot stand under the front fold down bed, quite ornate and lovely engraving all over actualy. the front standard looks like black chrome which is in very nice condition. mine has the Rapid Reticular f4 (faster than Alex's but possibly because the focal lenghts are different? not sure on that it seems wierd i thought the RR were slower than anastigmats. just that i beleive the anastigmat on Alex's is the later lens (step up) same with his shutter.

actually reading the instruction for Alex's 3a is hilarious, i always get a kick out of reading the old stuff....cracks me up sometimes.

they talk about how super the new anastigmat is and how to use it, then say things like 'we have had some complaints' and another place it says 'strange as it may seem there are amatures who do not know the difference between fast lens and fast shutter speeds' (one of my personal favourites LOL) and a section on 'unfair comparisons' between their anastigmat and Rapid Reticular lenses. i cant imagine canon or nikon writing that in their instructions!) and it goes on to say its best not used fully open anyway--just makes me laugh-love the honesty-in print no less for everyone to read--instead of the glossed over hmm (blank) we get nowadays

[PeterW]

Andrew,
I'm pretty sure the lens on your Kodak isn't f/4. As far as I know all Rapid Rectilinears had a maximum aperture of f/8.

The apertures on your lens are probably not an f-series of numbers, they are US numbers, where US stood for Universal System (not United States).

The Universal System was proposed in the 1880s by the Royal Photographic Society in London in an attempt to simplify the various aperture numbering systems that were in use at the time. They chose to start the series at the equivalent of f/4 because nobody in Society at the time believed that anyone would want to use a faster lens. The US System numbers ran 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and so on, each aperture number in the series passing half the light of the one below it. They were equivalent to f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and so on.

So the aperture marked 4 on your lens is the equivalent of f/8.

Kodak was the only major camera maker to adopt the US System. None of the European continental makers used it and it died out. Kodak eventually dropped it and went back to the f-series system.

There's a piece about the various aperture systems and how they were derived on my website www.peterwallage.com in the Camera Chit-Chat section.

PeterW

[Andrew]

Ah thanks Peter! very interesting, now that makes a lot more sence, thought i was going cross eyed seeing f4...as like you say i was sure the RR were f8 as well, though i think i have one f6.
not to mention the mere size of the glass had me thinking it couldn't be, i was baffled for a while there.

the numbers continue up to 128 which i presume off the top of my head is f64 as well

[PeterW]

the numbers continue up to 128 which i presume off the top of my head is f64 as well

Quite correct, Andrew. 128 US is equivalent to f/64 - the aperture loved by many Victorian landscape photographers. Not only did it give a huge depth of field it also gave a long exposure. With earlier Victorian cameras there was no shutter. Unless it was an exceptionally bright day the exposure at f/64 with very slow speed plates could be in minutes and was made by removing and replacing the lens cap, timed by a watch. Photography was a leisurely pastime in those days, and a few seconds either way made little or no difference.

In 1932 a group of American photographers including Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Imogen Cunningham, all working with large format, revived f/64 photography and called themselves the f/64 Group. The idea was to promote what they saw as 'pure' photography - fine detail, lots of DOF etc as a reaction against the wide aperture, soft focus dreamy ethereal look, and also against 'working-up' prints using the Bromoil process till they looked more like charcoal drawings than photographs. Both were becoming popular at the time as 'art' photography.

PeterW

[cyclops]

Yes I studied Weston and Adams as part of my photography course. They set about to record things as close to how nature intended as a reaction against the soft pictorialist photographs being made at the time. I would dearly love to try making a photograph with one of those 4x5 or 10x8 field cameras. Couldn't have been easy though when you consider the image was upside down! Any field camera users on here?

[mickeyobe]

Cyclops,

I have an 8"x10" Gundlach Korona with which I have made a couple of pictures. Upside down is no more difficult than right side up when one is photographing a landscape. Action pictures would be difficult.
I found the hard part was the temperature under the black cloth. Stifling.

As 8"x10" sheet film is very expensive I used enlarging paper that I rated at 10 ASA. I then scanned and reversed it on my computer.

Lousy pictures, as they were from the view out of one of my windows which is really no view at all.

It was an interesting experiment.

But the sharpness is something to behold. I should have saved them but can't find them now.

I used a process lens and my shutter was a lens cap made from a pickle jar lid and a wooden drawer knob.


Mickey

[Andrew]

oh yes cyclops, i love em i have a number of 4x5 (9x12) and also a few lovely feild cameras,

the temp under them is amazing isnt Mickey.

you get used to the image being around the other way, i used a hasselblad for years and veiw cameras just add that extra bit of adjusting. not really a problem though one tends to think more about the composition and such.

thanks Peter for the extra info, i find it fasinating, wish there was some easy way i could download all that experiance you have tucked away in that mind of yours haha.

i thought about it for some time after, and reckon that a f64 club sounds like something i would like