This post has no point. I just wanted to share.
First of all, a very kind supporter who might or might not remain anonymous (s/he hasn't told me yet) donated the funds for the purchase of this lovely artifact, which shall decorate the front hall of the TOP office / photo museum at the Eastlake House:
It's a Rochester Optical Pony Premo No. 6 "self-casing" camera, very popular at the turn of the 20th century, manufactured a few hills and dales away from me in Rochester, New York, probably between 1903 and 1906. The camera was developed when one W.F. Carlton ran the company, whether he designed it himself or not. I am delighted to have it to welcome visitors inside the front door of the office entrance of the house. My remaining decision is whether to put it on a contemporaneous vintage tripod or just let it sit on a table. It's going to look fetching either way.
The new house is a very complicated little house. I've been working out the placement of furniture and functionality...on paper, as I'm still not moved in to the place yet. But if things go like I think they will, on a large table opposite the Rochester Optical camera will sit either an Epson P600 or P800—right there in the living room! The living room (where the photography books will also go) will function as part of the office. (I mean, assuming TOP survives this year+ of moves, and I still need an office. (I do know we haven't been covering the world of photography very well of late. (That will change this Fall. (I know I said that last Fall. (But this time it's more likely to be true.)))))
Another fun thing: there will be a permanent sign out front that will say "The Online Photographer / Eastlake House." For this year the sign will be made of vinyl stick-ons, but in a year or two (or three?) when I can afford the $6–800 it costs, I'll get one of those hand-carved gold-leaf wooden signs. Or maybe I won't, but I will sure enjoy thinking about it.
Summer is gorgeous on Keuka Lake (I'm told Fall is too) and the Finger Lakes are a target-rich environment for photographers. It sure seems like a no-brainer to host workshops. Could you see it? A primary instructor in a field of expertise, with me doing hosting duties, portfolio reviews, and helping to lead discussions. There are plentitudinous B&B's and hotels in the area and lots of nice restaurants, and we could meet at the Eastlake House for group and individual discussions and one or two shared meals. Sure seems like something to think about for 2016.
Horseman
Here's the other cool film camera mentioned in the header. When I was (very sadly) de-accessioning my beloved but long-unused darkroom equipment, retired high school photography teacher and TOP reader Jeff Dionesotes, who turned out to be a very nice and interesting person—and, of course, like all TOP readers, well above average—came by the house to pick up my superb SaltHill print washer. So check out the man's box:
Naturally it shoots film; digital photographers are not known to have a great deal of use for print washers.
It's a Horseman Multiformat 985, and Jeff says he does everything with his, from snapshot memories to careful artwork. Which, if you ask me, is several shades of awesome (English translation: brilliant). Of course, he did take a return snap of me, and mentioned that it would be at least several weeks before either of us would see it...if either of us ever does. Jeff, you listening? Any progress to report?
By the way, I didn't charge Jeff for the washer. Ancient journalistic scruples, still in play: I didn't pay for it in the first place, so I couldn't profit from it now.
And as an aside, anyone know where Joe Saltzer of SaltHill is these days? I'd love to say hello.
Mike
(Thanks to anonymous and Jeff)
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
James Sinks: "Ah, the living room. A strangely named space in my experience—why would the room filled with an Epson 7900, 54" print timmer, rolls of paper, heavy duty copy stand, backdrops, props, light stands, C-stands, boom stand, lights, tripod, camera, and lenses, be called the 'living room'? Surely, 'photo room' would be a much better name for it."
Rob L: "That Horseman's a wonderful machine; I have its German cousin of sorts, the Linhof Tech 70, and use it for about the same purposes(the looks you get shooting on the playground, or soccer, with that critter...). The Rochester's a pretty Pony too:) Good luck with getting the house set up, and I have to say, workshops sound like a grand idea!"
scott kirkpatrick: "Your new camera looks very close in style, function, and content to the Wright Brothers' camera, the one which took the picture of their first flight. Theirs was made by Gundlach (a few blocks from the company that made this one, and they had a rapid rectilinear, the kit zoom of the day, which could be assembled in wide, normal, and telephone configurations."
Mike replies: Mine has a Gundlach Rapid Rectigraph lens, which may or may not be what you meant. Many of the Rochester camera companies were either close to each other or "in bed together," and I suspect at least a few were started in the hopes that George Eastman would eventually buy them, which he did in the case of Rochester Optical.
Golden Age or not (I LOVE my E-M5), "Optical Pony Premo No. 6" is a way better name than any camera has today. OM-D E-M5? WHAAAT? Was there a deadlock in the naming committee, Olympus?
Nikon's nomenclature escapades once prompted a friend to suggest that Nikon's next camera should be the Bob.
Dear camera makers, watch and learn. Your task is now to come up with a camera name that beats Optical Pony.
Posted by: Kalli | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 02:29 PM
Mike, So you "love today's cameras" (last post) AND you love yesterday's cameras (today's post). Ergo, you just love cameras period ;)
A workshop(s) is a great idea. How about B&W shooting and printing? But really, any excuse will do fine.
Posted by: Peter Wright | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 02:47 PM
Digital photographers, like me, who make digital negatives and contact print make lots of use of our print washers.
Two lovely cameras, though.
Posted by: John Wilson | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 02:49 PM
I used to have a Horseman press camera like that. I can't remember the exact model, though. I bought it used from a rather handy fellow who used it with a Schneider Convertible Symmar (the elements in front of the shutter could be removed to turn it into a much longer focal-length lens) and machined his own custom cam so that lens would work with the Horseman's rangefinder.
I used that camera for everything from architectural and macro work with careful shifts and tilts composed on the groundglass, to, believe it or not, nightclub party photos, taken with flash and the rangefinder/viewfinder combo. It was an amazingly versatile camera. I often regret selling it and wish it was still around just to be admired on a shelf, and occasionally played with for old-times sake.
Posted by: Stephen S. | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 04:24 PM
Mike, you said "digital photographers do not have a great deal of use for print washers"
But a few do. I have a nice platinum/palladium print here a friend made from a digital file and ink-jet interneg, and it might work to print those internegs on regular silver paper. Is it possible to get results comparable with prints from film that way? I don't know but am curious.
Also in the past I have toyed with the idea of a paper writer like a Durst Lambda, mainly for color work but I liked the idea of being able to do B&W as well.
Posted by: Doug Chadwick | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 04:28 PM
Check that viewfinder!
Posted by: Michael | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 04:33 PM
Sounds suspiciously like Lake Wobegon "Where all the children are above average."
Mi dos centavos
Posted by: Hugh Smith | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 06:13 PM
I reckon the "top" camera (see what I did there) would be perfect on one of those wooden tripods you mentioned recently.
As for your plans for the TOPNWHQ (plans sounds better than dreams to me, more definite) it sounds like some good things are afoot.
Posted by: Kefyn Moss | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 06:32 PM
What happened to your Canon Pixma Pro-1?
[Alas, had to go to a good home long ago, because I wasn't able to exercise it properly. --Mike]
Posted by: Rico Ramirez | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 07:13 PM
Please take that gorgeous pony for a ride. I've got some Polaroid 55 in the frig and a couple of Polaroid backs if needed. Just say the word.
Posted by: Darlene Almeda | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 07:27 PM
Darn, I was going to go that. No really, I considered it ... until I looked at my checking account. Curses.
Posted by: Christopher Lane | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 07:27 PM
Yes, I do have a bed in my bedroom, but the photo stuff (desk and extension, printer tower, desk chair, bookcases) occupy more square feet than the bed.
I don't anticipate having an "old camera" display, other than my beloved 1968 Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000 35mm SLR and a film canister or two. The view camera lives in its suitcase, and the camera is not a beautiful polished wood folder, just black aluminum. No point in having it on display. Maybe I will dig up a copy of the 120-using Kodak Brownie my mom gave me for camp age 8 - lord knows where that went, but the camp was my first exposure to the magic of the darkroom.
Both of the local photo stores have wonderful collections mounted high on the walls.
Posted by: NancyP | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 08:05 PM
I will be the first to sign up for your workshops at Eastlake! Looking forward to learning infrared flower photography with Ctein ;)
Posted by: Howard Sandler | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 09:34 PM
LOVE your use of multi-level parentheses. Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that says you can't use them? (Joseph Heller, in "Something Happened" (not as famous as "Catch-22" (but a good read) not only used them often, but also would extend a parenthetical sentence into a paragraph into several pages. You'd come to the last closing ')' and wonder what you missed, then page back to find the opening one. (I use that technique in matching IF with ENDIF when coding.))
I'm sorry I got rid of my Kodak 2D 8x10 several years ago. I'd donate it to the TOP decor. When I bought it, I got a brawny wood tripod with it. Any interest in a well used Argus C3? With leather case, and flash. Such a deal!
Posted by: MikeR | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 09:41 PM
Glad that beauty is going to a good, appreciative, home. And take up Darlene's offer of the polariod film. RR's make delightful images... where did I put that one I hacked for my 4x5?
Posted by: Willam Lewis | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 10:27 PM
Congrats on the new house and new camera!
Posted by: Joseph Brunjes | Wednesday, 12 August 2015 at 11:21 PM
I have the younger brother of that Horseman. The VHR is a lovely machine. I have it with three lenses (all with cams made for the specific lenses) and just about every option Horseman ever made for it. Lots of backs, the hard case, the special cable release, the adaptor to use regular cable releases, etc. Haven't used it in years though. Need to find a home for it. If I had more room, and if I still had my Reis tripod I might consider putting it on display but I'd feel better if someone was actually using it.
Posted by: Isaac | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 12:44 AM
Referring to the OM-D E-M5, or usually Olympus OM-D E-M5, is all our fault. It should be referred to as the Olympus M5 which is simple enough. Remember that the original Olympus 35mm SLR was named the M1 and only changed to OM1 because of objections by Leitz. The film cameras stopped at the Olympus M4 and the digital took over at Olympus M5. People seem to love these long strings of letters and numbers so I think it is too late to change now but Olympus (or us) should have called the original the Maitani1, which I guess is where the M came from.
Posted by: Richard Parkin | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 02:55 AM
Aww man.. Now I Want an antique camera. Again. Enough with the camera porn Mike.....
;-)
Posted by: Ger Lawlor | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 04:24 AM
Aren't digital photographers who print on digital negatives actually hybrid photographers? So Mike is right. Sorry, sounds pedantic, but that's how my brain functions!! Actually digital photographers are hybrid too - light is analog (at the photon level is that digital??), phototransistors are analog (continuous voltage/current), analog to digital converters are the interface. Spraying ink onto paper sounds analog to me too (digital to analog converter).
Sorry, off topic - I'll get my coat.
Posted by: David Cope | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 06:44 AM
Wow, nice camera, and probably quite usable if the film holders fit a contemporary film size. What is the little rectangle box with a circle on the lower left of your Rochester camera? Is it a viewfinder of some sort? Also, I see a modern plastic lens cap. I think you need a leather cap.
Posted by: Kodachromeguy | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 10:01 AM
If only there was a digital back for the Pony! ;-) Seriously, I'm totally enamored of digital photography because it's so painterly in its ability to make small, subtle changes in a photograph, the kinds of things painters do all the time but took hours of mucking about making masks, or hard-to-repeat darkroom gymnastics in the film days. And I like sitting at my desk on nice days being able to look out my window as I work on photos. I've no interest in film any more. But I miss carrying my Leica C3, for example, and wish I could put a chip inside. There's probably no market for such and the cost is way beyond my budget, I'm sure, but it's my fantasy.
Posted by: Jay Pastelak | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 12:32 PM
Ah, like the recent wooden tripod discussion, ya gotta love a camera that you could burn to stay warm if stranded in the wilderness! (That's somethin' ya can't do with them there new fangled di-gi-tal cameras!)
Of course the likelihood of being stranded with such a beast seems pretty remote. I wonder how many of these cameras have ever (a) been more than 1,000 feet from an automobile, and (b) been used more than a handful of times?
Posted by: Ken Tanaka | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 12:32 PM
I recently discovered that a good place to see vintage cameras in action is vintage car racing. I saw all sorts of interesting gadgets, whether with wheels or lenses.
Posted by: Anthony Shaughnessy | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 12:35 PM
Good luck with your plans! There is a nice new photographic centre being setup in Slovenia this Summer. Fairly convenient for cheap flights from most of Europe I suppose. This what they are doing over there....
https://borutpeterlin.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/topshit-photo-safari-was-a-success/
Posted by: Martin | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 12:57 PM
Before you set that thoroughbred Pony out on a table or mount it on a fine wood tripod, have you thought about how you're going to "Butters"-proof it? I can imagine what will go through that little canine's mind: "yum, real leather bellows, must chew! MUST CHEW!"
Posted by: Carl Blesch | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 01:02 PM
Ken Tanaka- The sages on DPR say that several of the modern cameras will keep you warm if you go to video mode.
Posted by: Clayton | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 02:06 PM
If you put it on a wooden tripod, remember to tighten up the leg locks in the Fall. As the wood dries out in the winter it shrinks and can drop itself and the camera. My Ries did that to my Deardorff, ouch!
Posted by: Doug Chadwick | Thursday, 13 August 2015 at 05:03 PM
Hah! I just noticed the possibly deliberate typo in Scott Kirkpatrick's featured comment - "they had a rapid rectilinear, the kit zoom of the day, which could be assembled in wide, normal, and telephone configurations." - presumably the "telephone" configuration was the mobile-phone-cam of the day?
Anthony
Posted by: Anthony Shaughnessy | Friday, 14 August 2015 at 03:46 AM