Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 18, 2014 15:10:06 GMT -5
An Ilford Advocate 35mm camera on it's way from Ebay, said to be working, but bad enamel finish. Much cheaper than a good appearance example. Quite small, neat and plain design. Originally designed by Kennedy Instruments as a laboratory camera, they proved popular with outdoor types as they were robust enough for mountaineers and explorers. The Advocate camera could be used with gloves on and stand cold etc. The shutter is a simple rotory design, but reliable, and quite serviceable. Only focus and apertures as other controls. Semi wide angle 35mm f4.5 lens a bit ahead of it's time for the late 1940's. Fitted with Dallmayer made lenses, then Wray on the Mk11. The Mk11 had flash contacts as well, but this early Mk1 has had them added. It also has the chrome pressure plate that was used for about the first 700 cameras. This was dropped as it did not work well with some colour films, which allow light through the film dye layers. In particular it did not work well with Agfa colour negative film. They soon changed back to a black finish pressure plate. It holds the honour of being the first British 35mm camera to reach the market after the war. Often modified for quite specialist uses, including microscopes, and could take other lenses, or be fitted to telescopes. Half frame versions were made by specialist users. Some were fitted by Kennedy to take bulk film backs for laboratory work, along with motor driven versions for time lapse photography. Will need attention to the enamel, which is difficult to remove, despite the evidence it comes of in huge chunks! it is not true enamel,(molten glass), but thick baked on stove enamel paint. Kennedy's produced them in small quantities in stoved black finish as well, very uncommon.(Originally supplied to the MOD). The camera never sold in large quantities, and post war import restrictions were the only real reason they were made. Kennedy instruments were financed by Ilford as a subsidury company, despite the original Kennedy company making die cast parts for cars before the war. As soon as the import restrictions went in the mid 1950's the Advocate 35mm camera was dropped. Wray tried to take over the design etc, but Ilford preferred to let it lapse without any development of a newer model. The Peto-Scott made Ilford Witness suffered the same fate, Ilford simply destroyed the last production run to ensure a tax write-off agreed with the Tax authorities. The later Ilford branded 35mm cameras came from Dacora in Germany. Stephen
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Sept 18, 2014 18:13:12 GMT -5
I saw this and wondered if it was worth it. I would have wanted to restore it. Probably removing all the enamel and having it powder coated.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 18, 2014 20:10:17 GMT -5
Interesting run down on the camera, Stephen. It certainly has a lived-in look about it.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Sept 19, 2014 4:30:25 GMT -5
I always thought it was white bakelite. they have one in Real Camera and its beautiful
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 19, 2014 8:14:42 GMT -5
Restoration depends on how easily the old paint comes off, it is stove baked paint, and would slowly respond to strippers, like caustic soda. Powder Epoxy paint could be used, given a company willing to do a one off job.
It might be worth doing it in black satin finish, as Kennedy supplied the MOD with black versions. Ilford simply would not listen to requests by Wallace Heaton and other leading shops, to drop the unusual cream finish.
ILford felt it made the camera stand out in displays, and gave it an appeal to woman customers. I knew the Ilford rep who sold them, and he said they had all colours made as samples to try to get Ilford to change their mind and market them.
Ilford changed lens makers half way through manufacture, due to Dallmayer being more interested in large MOD camera lens projects, changed over to Wray Lenses in Bromley, but Wray had quality control problems with the 3.5 design. Ross submitted prototypes, but were too costly. TTH were approached to supply a 35mm F2.8 lens, but the lens cost more than the camera at retail price.
There are a lot around with unusual lenses fitted by the repair and special camera makers, also half frame versions. Leech built some with 50mm F2.8 lenses with a larger compur shutter.
Kennedy made a version with a bulk back using standard 35mm motion picture reels and film canisters, with motorised film advance to allow stop motion pictures, time lapse, or remote firing.
The camera was unique in being designed by a non camera maker, it is far easier to service, the shutter is basic but works, depending on a hairspring, which can easily be replaced.
The Ilford Advocate is one on the best designed releases on any camera, it does not cause camera shake...or at least minimises it, as the grip tightens to fire, and any resultant movement is sideways, not vertical. The sideways movement is stopped by the grip of the hands. Miss holding the camera causes shake.
It was designed with gloved hands in mind, indicating that Kennedy saw the Advocate as a specialist camera right from the start, not just a mass market camera. It was taken on the Everest Climb, and Polar Expeditions.
Stephen
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 19, 2014 14:39:41 GMT -5
The other point about the Advocate was the image quality, which was excellent.
The 35mm wide angle lens made landscapes easy, there was enough contrast and sharpness to rival any equivalent makers of the time.
By the 1970/80 period it was rare go see them sold second hand, many were still in regular use, still favoured by photographers who liked the small size and general precision of the Advocate.
Ilford were very wrong to not develop the camera, it had loyal users, despite the ivory coloured body!
In perfect condition they still sell well, but mainly as a curiosity nowadays.
The camera needs attention, once the enamel starts flaking it will go from bad to worst. But the aluminium body is exceedingly strong, it is not Mazak, and does not corrode or oxidise easily.
There is no plastic in the whole camera bar insulation for the bulb flash contacts, it needs re-timing to fire electronic flash.
Ilford's own colour film did no favours for the camera, the chrome film plate reflected light back into the film, even worst than Agfa.
Kodachrome worked well, but if you liked Kodak you would have a Retina! It made much of being an all British design and British manufacture in the advertising and brochures. It was displayed at The Festival Of Britain in 1951, and the trade expected new models to be developed. But in practice the money was not there.
Compared to film and paper supplies, even if it had sold well it contributed nothing to the company in profits.
It made more money to buy in cheap Dacora cameras and sell them instead.
It was also the UK tax system that killed so many UK projects in the early 1950/60's, as losses could be written off to ease other taxes. This killed the Ken Corfield Periflex cameras, Guinness bought Corfield deliberately to use as a loss making asset.
Ilford did the same for the Witness Camera, which saw production deliberately destroyed to get the rebates. The taxman wanted destruction to stop makers getting a rebate and then still sell the loss making item.
The Advocate was successful enough to escape destruction, the stock was sold to the Photographic trade, and was sold off by mail order, and at Gamages in Holborn, as late as the early 1960's. London Camera Exchange sold a batch as late as 1970/72.
Wray, who had taken on the lens making, tried to buy the camera design from Ilford, but for reasons unknown refused to part with it. Wray had troubles making the high quality lens needed, and perhaps Ilford did not want the design cheapened and their reputation affected. Stephen
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 19, 2014 17:34:44 GMT -5
The Advocate interior, I do hope the Kodachrome film is included, it is an early type, perhaps showing camera out of use for many years. Kennedy's design was a bit odd, the film track was located on steel pins that rested into the cast body, and shafts and gears were retained in half bearings, by straps screwed on. The rewind shaft lifts out on a hinge to remove the 35mm cassette. The body was claimed to be as accurate as could be manufactured at the time, and the collimation and mounting of the lens was first class. The internal parts can be easily released to service parts. Ilford discouraged lubrication of the parts, which helped with withstanding cold temperatures. This ability lead to use on Polar expeditions, and mountain climbing.
|
|
|
Post by genazzano on Sept 19, 2014 20:54:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the excellent write up on a camera that I too have found interesting. David
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 20, 2014 7:45:11 GMT -5
Looking at the design, it looks as if the inspiration for the internals and parts may have come from the Argus C, from the US maker, who were another company who used non camera designers to make cameras. Many US only designs came from ex radio trade designers, causing the widespread use of Bakelite and cast Mazak in the US designs.
I don't think any influence came from the two Ilford Witness designers, who were Germans, ex Leica and Zeiss, and both Jews, working for Ilford, later transferred to the Peto-Scott radio company, who made the Witness under contract.
Kennedy seems to have been a close friend of the owner of Ilford, and was looking for new work after making precision aluminium castings during the war period. There was a huge surplus of aluminium after the war, and the Board of Trade offered subsidies to manufacturers who used the metal.
Many smaller companies dropped out of manufacture or remained ticking over because of the enormous tax rates brought in after the war, even at over 100%, when they eased in the early 1950's, a lot sat back and tried to recover the cash by not investing in new projects, they wanted to re-coup the tax by any means. Company owners became cash rich, but left the companies struggling along. Many financed "pet" projects, and perhaps that was what the Advocate was, an unusual one off.
Stephen.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 23, 2014 10:34:03 GMT -5
The Ilford Advocate camera arrived OK, and is all in fully working order, bar a slight hesitancy for the shutter interlock to work, which is just a return coil spring that is slightly too weak. Despite Ilford not advising oiling, the main shafts etc., will be lubricated sparingly, except on the shutter plates. The parts are 100%, just the bad cracking ivory paint. The shutter is very quiet, as you would expect from a simple rotary plate shutter, barely more sophisticated than some box cameras. It is however, accurate on my tester, with a speed range from 1/25 to 1/200th plus B. There is a cable release socket on the camera front. The Dallmeyer 35mm F3.5 is clean and not scratched, and appears fungus free. The back element is protected by the shutter plate. The front element is well recessed, Ilford only advised the use of the special metal hood, if filters were used. Size comparison with a Zorki Leica clone. It is heavier than you would expect, very solid indeed. Any one know how old the Kodachrome is? no film speed marked at all, just K 135. After saying there was no plastic, this early version Advocate has a Bakelite film track moulding. The rest is aluminium or steel. Quick test shot on off cut of FP4 film, lens works fine. (1/100 at F11).
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Sept 23, 2014 17:28:55 GMT -5
This particular version of Kodachrome was between 1955 and 1962 and was 12 ASA. Using a defunct K11 process, it can be developed in black and white by specialist labs if you want it done.
I would be interested in this roll if you have no need for it. I am starting a collection of old long-gone films
Back to the camera, those flash terminals look like an afterthought. Nothing elegant about THEIR design!
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 23, 2014 18:26:34 GMT -5
The flash is definetely an aftermarket addition, the Mk 1 had no contacts for bulb or electronic flash at all. When the Mk ll came along it was fitted with a plug where the prongs are on this one.
You could have the older cameras modified to take either plug, or prongs, and adjusted for electronic flash. As it had a rotary plate shutter it naturally has a full open position for the flash to work at all speeds, any type.
This one is early vintage, the chrome pressure plate type, cannot see any serial numbers so far.
Even with the Mk ll, the flash plug lead was supplied bare ended to allow the user to connect any plug at the far end to suit the flash.
The camera did not have an official flash for itself as far as I can see. You could use other Ilford units.
Stephen
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 23, 2014 19:01:08 GMT -5
I'll keep the old Kodachrome film with the camera, after all it has been with it since at least the 1960's!!! I will process the film myself to see if anything has survived the years. Ordinary processing will handle the Kodachrome to negative, with D-76.
As a family we never took colour photographs in the 1940/50's period, far too expensive, you had to buy a viewer or a projector!
A lot of chemists would not handle colour film as it had to be sent to Kodak for processing, and took a week to ten days to get back. Most shops could return B/W the next day or even the same day in holiday resort towns.
Even in the 1970/s there were customers in the shop who baulked at the price of colour film, and a lot stuck to slides as it was process paid, unlike the US, where the law insisted others should be able to process any film.
Colour prints were expensive, and it took the introduction of mail order to force the price down.
Mind you most, mail order was awful in quality, only well exposed shots printed even half decent, and most amateur negatives were under exposed by up to two stops. The cheap labs corrected for this, meaning that good negs sent in were printed badly.......
Most mail order came back stinking of fixer bath, no proper washing, and quickly deteriorated.
My Grandfather did use colour film pre-war, he used Dufay, which gave 120 roll film transparencies, of which I still have a few. But then he was an owner of a transport business and could afford it. He had TV from 1936 as well. I have never traced exactly what camera he owned, it was a Zeiss, but no further details have survived the years.
Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Sept 24, 2014 4:19:08 GMT -5
Max Spielmann started a mail order business in the 60's aimed at serious amateurs, they were good quality photofinishers but too expensive for your family snapper. Ads in Amateur Photographer and favourable mentions in the magazines of the day ensured their success.
In the late 70's they opened up some branches close by to their home base of Liverpool each with a minilab. We were lucky enough to have one where I live but bad machine hygiene resulted in negs being scratched or dusty negatives being printed. They havent changed and on the odd occasion I need a neg printed by them it is always truly dreadful.
Dufay colour, didn't that have printed coloured dots or a checkerboard patter on the emulsion much like a digital sensor? it would be nice to see some of these slides.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 24, 2014 6:43:17 GMT -5
I will try to find the Dufay shots, stored away in a box that I have not seen for a while. Dufay was a positive color process, based on a matrix or lines of very fine grooves filled with corn starch and sensitive emulsion.
The machines to make the grooves were extreme precision, custom made to zero tolerances.
Exposure and then b/w processing to positive gave a three colour transparency.
The colour was excellent, but the matrix being black, lost light transmission. This did not matter for slides too much, and worked well for shots for magazines, printers loved the color quality, especially as 5x7 and 8x10 were manufactured.
Colours came out true on Dufay, very important for Fashion shoots, where colour samples were vital with other processes.
Then Dufay tried cine film, even 8 mm, but mainly 35mm. No special cameras were ever needed for Dufay, any would do. At usual projection sizes the matrix lines did not show on the screen.
At first it seemed to rival Technicolor in tests, but then they tried duplication for cinema use. The contrast shot up and the image was too dim.
Also, unlike technicolor, the copies were very expensive to make.
Technicolor used cheap gelatine inked prints, very technical but far cheaper, it was their trade secret!
Dufay did one full length cinema film, "Son's of the Sea", with a special low contrast film purely for printing. It cured the issue, but the war stopped all work, and it never returned.
The slide film continued for a while but vanished when Dufay went into plastic production after the war.
Sons of the Sea is available on a DVD, in a newly digitally restored copy done for the BFI archive.
The only other cinema use was as two colour insert musical numbers in the Will Hay comedy Radio Parade, which were found in the abandoned Denham Film studios film vaults. Rotting away, they were saved and restored in the 1980's with a small loss to the first number.
Dufay was also trialed for the now lost "The Hunt",the first British full length colour cartoon film made by Alexander Korda at Denham Studios. But Technicolor were building a unit at Denham in 1937, and Korda changed over to them.
The Hunt exists only in a few scraps found in the flooded Denham film vault.
Stephen.
|
|