[rollei_list] Re: (OT) Rilex Press Cameras Linhof? Plaubel? Printex Etc Etc
- From: Mark Kronquist <mak@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:33:37 -0700
The immediate post WWII era was a high point for machine shop garages trying to
break into the industry. Not all shooters used Speed Graphics.
My Grandmother (press woman of the year, Editor of the Free China Post eschewed
the Speed Graphics (and NuWay Press Cameras) she was offered for the
convenience of a Rolleicord and Yashicamats. She shot with those for decades
(until I finally kitted her out with a Kodak DCS which she promptly embraced,
tossing aside her TLRs and her Hermes (both are in the family)...and always
felt that she could outshoot any "Caveman" with a Speed Graphic...
Yes Speed Graphics were the Nikon and Century Graphics were the Canon of the
era but that does not mean there are not professionals turning out top notch
photos with Hasselblad H cameras, Pentaxes, Olympus Cameras, Sony Maxxums
I have always wanted to put together a collection of old odd make press
cameras...they all were odd, fun bits of history
Be they a Graflex
Meridian
Kalart
Vidax
NuVue
Gowland
Burke and James
Busch
Micro Percison
etc
On Mar 24, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Kirk Thompson wrote:
> But despite what Mr. Riley may have named it, that's just not press camera.
>
> First of all, at that time, it would have been 4x5. 6x9s (called 2-1/4s)
> were used by night club ladies in scanty outfits who took your picture,
> passed the film out the door, and had your glossy 8x10 back before you
> finished your next drink. But no newspaper, or at least no local one, would
> have had a supply of 2-1/4 film holders.
>
> Further, it would need a flash bracket and a (Kalart) rangefinder. It would
> have a back window cover, as in the picture; but it would never be focused
> that way (except perhaps for copy work). With 127 & 135mm lenses (often
> Ektars; sometimes Xenars, etc.), a rangefinder would be almost as important
> as a film.
>
> And finally, instead of the clumsy rails it would need a folding bed for
> protection when it was tossed into the coupe. It probably went in a battered
> case that held the camera between two rows of exposed/unexposed film holders.
> Press cameras got banged around, so no press photographer would have bought
> an odd size/brand. It had to be a Speed Graphic with focal plane shutter,
> for sports; or for budget, backup, and weddings, a Crown Graphic (lighter,
> w/o the heavy thudding shutter). Anyone who abused one could have it fixed
> quickly. You could adjust the RF and flash synch yourself (the latter, by
> photographing a bare flash bulb on an extension cord, to see if it had burned
> brightly while the shutter was open).
>
> The only wannabe competitor was the Busch Pressman.
>
> Ah, those were the days (said the high school boy who drove the nearly blind
> local reporter/stringer and took his pictures).
>
> Kirk
>
> > From: dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:03:45 -0500
> > Subject: [rollei_list] (OT) Rilex Press Cameras
> > To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Here's a picture of a Rilex press camera:
> >
> > http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Riley
> >
> > Looks like they were lightweight, aluminum-bodied 6x9cm press cameras
> > with a rotating back, swings and tilts, bed extension, etc., made
> > circa 1947-48 by Riley Research, a company in Santa Monica, CA. I
> > guess they were mainly designed to use sheet film, but there
> > supposedly was a roll film holder made as well.
> >
> > Three body styles have been identified by collectors, and dubbed A, B,
> > and AB. Jason Schneider mentioned them in a column once.
> >
> > Apparently, the cameras were not sold with lenses. You had to provide
> > your own, which explains why a variety of lenses have been found with
> > these cameras, which come up for auction occasionally. Likely the
> > lenses used were the same type as on the 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" Graflex
> > cameras.
> >
> > My guess is production numbered several hundred cameras at least,
> > since one example has a serial number of about 800. In the late
> > 1940s, they sold for $49.50.
> >
> > One researcher says the inventor was named Curtis Riley and that he
> > has been in contact with the man's daughter. Maybe the idea I got of
> > a connection to Doyle Riley may be wrong, or perhaps Curtis and Doyle
> > were related somehow. Doyle Riley was 65 years old when he died in
> > 1994, meaning he would have been about 18 when the Rilex camera hit
> > the market.
> >
> > Doyle ran Riley Marketing with his sons, but it looks like the
> > business petered out after his death, since he was the driving force
> > and main "spark plug." They may still have some filters stored away
> > in a garage.
> >
> > Doyle's grandson has a web site for his photography endeavors and is
> > hoping to learn more about his relative. Doyle used to tell stories
> > of how he had briefly owned one of the original gull-wing Mercedes
> > cars in the late 1950s.
> >
> > He also said he had one of those "step-down" Hudsons in the 50s, and
> > although they only had a 6-cylinder motor, they could cruise at 100
> > mph for hours, which is what you needed to do if you were a traveling
> > salesman in Texas back then.
> > ---
>
Other related posts:
