Digitizing 120: Opinions regarding DSLR vs flatbed vs film scanner?

A bit of history behind the photos I've been posting, for anyone interested:

 

Stunning Pacholski photos offer a snapshot of Milwaukee in December '61

Very impressive! Your father clearly believed in "go big or go home" - not many 19 y/o art students in 1961 would go so far as to create a book from one of their projects. How wonderful for you (and Milwaukee) that he did it, and the book/negatives survived intact! Too bad there doesn't seem to be a more "official" Milwaukee historical organization: if there was, I'm sure they'd put some funds toward digitizing and preserving these images.

Re the camera he might have used: probably a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex with f/3.5 Tessar lens, possibly borrowed from the art school for this project. These images have a "look" to them that seem more suggestive of Rollei TLR than a folding eye-level camera, and its doubtful he used some junky box-Brownie for them. Of course there were cheaper budget Japanese TLRs like Yashica and Minolta in that era, but I don't think they were common in areas like Milwaukee (and an art school would almost certainly have chosen Rollei, since that was the standard "portable" photojournalist camera of the time before 35mm took over). The Mamiya TLRs had not quite gained a foothold yet. The Hasselblad SLR was still new, outrageously expensive, and not conducive to street shooting (and cheaper clones of it like Bronica were not yet common). So I'd put the odds at 50/50 he used either a Rolleiflex/Rolleicord or 6x6 folder from Kodak/Zeiss Ikon/Agfa. Not that it matters in the end: what most makes these photos pop is his assured eye for street documentary and detail (surprising in someone so young), and technique at getting sharp depth of focus.

Re the camera he might have used: probably a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex with f/3.5 Tessar lens, possibly borrowed from the art school for this project. These images have a "look" to them that seem more suggestive of Rollei TLR than a folding eye-level camera, and its doubtful he used some junky box-Brownie for them. Of course there were cheaper budget Japanese TLRs like Yashica and Minolta in that era, but I don't think they were common in areas like Milwaukee (and an art school would almost certainly have chosen Rollei, since that was the standard "portable" photojournalist camera of the time before 35mm took over). The Mamiya TLRs had not quite gained a foothold yet. The Hasselblad SLR was still new, outrageously expensive, and not conducive to street shooting (and cheaper clones of it like Bronica were not yet common). So I'd put the odds at 50/50 he used either a Rolleiflex/Rolleicord or 6x6 folder from Kodak/Zeiss Ikon/Agfa. Not that it matters in the end: what most makes these photos pop is his assured eye for composition and detail (surprising in someone so young), and technique at getting sharp depth of focus.

He did take one selfie, 1961 style, but alas I don't think there's enough detail to make anything out, other than it definitely had some sort of waist level finder.

That's the center crop of a larger photo.

The only other things I can gather from the negatives are the film moved vertically through the camera, not horizontally, and the exposed images have funny, non-square corners in the top left and top right, as seen in this photo. I have no idea if that's at all helpful in IDing a model, but it's something I noticed. As you say, though, it definitely seems like it was something of fairly good quality. The only thing I'm not certain about is if he used the same lens for everything or used a few different focal lengths.

Back on topic, my digitizing setup is a bit clunky, but I think it's producing pretty nice results for online viewing, so I'm going to go through do the rest of these negs that way so I at least have *something*. At some point in the future I may have some or all professionally scanned if I end up doing more with them.

As a tangent, I wish I knew what camera my dad had used to take these.

- The run of the film is vertical, which narrows it down and eliminates a rangefinder or folder type camera. The lens-height on many shots appears to be chest or waist-level. So a TLR at a guess. Maybe a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord. Perhaps a Yashica, but definitely something with a good lens.

I'm guessing your Dad wasn't rich enough at that time to afford a Hasselblad.

Maybe you can find a shot where your Dad is reflected in a window or similar shiny surface?

Ah! After posting I see I've been forestalled on the above suggestion. From the hand positions, I'd say almost certainly a TLR of some sort.

Yashicamats were definitely around in 1959 - I have one from that year, bought by my uncle in Vancouver.

The only other things I can gather from the negatives are the film moved vertically through the camera, not horizontally, and the exposed images have funny, non-square corners in the top left and top right, as seen in this photo. I have no idea if that's at all helpful in IDing a model, but it's something I noticed.

Do the corners look similar to the scan(of the tulips) that I posted on Page 4 of this thread?

As I mentioned, that was taken either with a Rolleiflex Automat III or a Rolleicord Va. Both the ones that I was using had coated 75mm Schneider Xenar f/3.5 lenses(a Tessar clone). I'm GUESSING it was taken with the former, as when I bought the 'Cord it had a factory 645 kit and it took me a while to find the parts(specifically the frame counter-I ended up robbing one off a parts body I bought just to get it) to take it back to 6x6. I'm pretty sure, though, that both gave the same look to the corners.

With that said, most MF cameras give some sort of "extra" area. I don't know of anything that's specifically intended to ID the camera other than the Hassblad "V"s, but someone so inclined can add those to any camera they wish(Hasselblad film backs have two small Vs cut in the edge of the frame mask. On a normally oriented negative, it will be on the left side of the frame...also left side if you're looking at the mask from the dark slide side, and under your right hand with the back on the camera-they're about halfway down and separated by 7mm or so).

I'm seeing a triangular shape of the lenses on the camera. The orientation of the triangle (seen more clearly on the taking lens) would indicate bayonet filter/accessory mount. The position of the photographer's right hand indicates front shutter release button. Definitely TLR and probably a Rollei, judging by the sharpness and clarity of the negatives.

An early Automat is my humble opinion of what the camera was. The viewing lens has no bayonet mount which explains why the taking lens looks "triangular", in the previous post, and the viewing lens looks more "circular". The "triangular" look of the taking lens is caused by the round reflection of the lens being broken up by the three bayonet segments of the otherwise circular lens

Would an Automat with only a Tessar lens fit in with your Dad's circumstances at the time ? It was a cheaper Rollei, even cheaper second hand

Rolleiflex Automat

Do the corners look similar to the scan(of the tulips) that I posted on Page 4 of this thread?

 

As I mentioned, that was taken either with a Rolleiflex Automat III or a Rolleicord Va. Both the ones that I was using had coated 75mm Schneider Xenar f/3.5 lenses(a Tessar clone). I'm GUESSING it was taken with the former, as when I bought the 'Cord it had a factory 645 kit and it took me a while to find the parts(specifically the frame counter-I ended up robbing one off a parts body I bought just to get it) to take it back to 6x6. I'm pretty sure, though, that both gave the same look to the corners.

Similar, yes. Almost like devil's horns. Alas, I did a bit of searching online, and it seems like a number of TLRs, including the Yashicamat, produced similar looking corners (why?). So I may never be able to narrow it down to a specific model. But it was almost certainly one that's been mentioned. Unfortunately, I don't remember any specific mention of such a camera by my dad, and I'm not finding any mention in old e-mails.

Would an Automat with only a Tessar lens fit in with your Dad's circumstances at the time ? It was a cheaper Rollei, even cheaper second hand

I honestly don't know, but it sounds plausible. My *guess* is my grandparents wouldn't have bought a camera for him, so it would have been up to him to get one. And as a college (or maybe even high school) student, he probably couldn't have afforded a ton.

Am I correct that the Automat had the capability of switching taking lenses, but the only options were 75mm f/3.5? How different were the available lenses?

I doubt there's enough detail in the "selfie" shot to glean any more details about the camera, but I may try capturing just the center of the image to get more detail. I'll need to figure out a way to adjust my setup to do that.

Here are a couple of more I captured last night that I particularly like.

There's a popular culture of going for a 'good thick' neg. It's mistaken and bad practise.

Expose for the shadows, and B&W (or color negatives) will take care of the highlights.

That doesn't mean use the shadow reading, rather the shadows should be no more than 4 stops underexposed, and a little more exposure is better.

Expose for the shadows, and B&W (or color negatives) will take care of the highlights.

 

That doesn't mean use the shadow reading, rather the shadows should be no more than 4 stops underexposed, and a little more exposure is better.

- More exposure doesn't add a lot to maximum density, rather it compresses the highlights. It's over-development that increases Dmax drastically.

My *guess* is my grandparents wouldn't have bought a camera for him, so it would have been up to him to get one. And as a college (or maybe even high school) student, he probably couldn't have afforded a ton.

If he bought it himself or got it as a gift, it could have been a second-hand Yashicamat, Minolta Autocord, Flexaret, Ricoh Diacord, Koniflex etc.. These were half the price of comparable Rolleis at the time. Its also possible the art school may have had a brace of Rolleis or other TLRs that students could rent or borrow.

Am I correct that the Automat had the capability of switching taking lenses, but the only options were 75mm f/3.5? How different were the available lenses?

None of the Rollei TLRs had interchangeable lenses. When you see similar Rollei bodies with different lenses fitted, thats just different models or production runs: Rollei had Zeiss and Schneider 75mm/80mm variants at a range of speeds and price points (Tessar/Xenon 3.5, Planar/Xenar 3.5, Planar/Xenar 2.8). As a niche sideline, they also later made dedicated RolleiWide (55mm) and TeleRollei (135mm) models. The Tessar/Xenon is considered somewhat inferior to the Planar/Xenar, but it largely depends on the subject and f/stops. Wider than f/5.6, the Tessar/Xenon has weaker edges and corners, but stopped down to f/8 its a wash. Many photographers even prefer the simpler Tessar/Xenon for its more interesting "look". The only not-great Rollei TLR lens is the early Triotar type, and even that one is passable for B&W if used carefully.

Only the Mamiya (and later, one-off Koni-Omegaflex 6x7) TLRs had fully interchangeable lens sets. The Mamiya was barely off the ground and not widely available in 1961, the early version was also huge and had an easily-identifiable silhouette (round shiny-front lenses, no bayonet filter mounts, extended squared-off bellows focusing rack). There's a famous pic of Diane Arbus shooting her Mamiya in Central Park: its almost as big as she is. The Koni-Omegaflex was an even larger, bizarre ergonomic nightmare that didn't debut until 1968.

BTW those last two pics are great, the lamp repair guy especially: your father had an enviable eye for composition and opportunity.

As usual, I got my Schneiders mixed up again.o_O

The Tessar equivalent is the Xenar (not Xenon). The Planar equivalent is Xenotar. I have some sort of tic that prevents me keeping these names straight until the window for post editing closes. My Mamiyas are much easier to remember: no matter the speed or focal length, they're all Sekors!

I doubt there's enough detail in the "selfie" shot to glean any more details about the camera, but I may try capturing just the center of the image to get more detail. I'll need to figure out a way to adjust my setup to do that.

A strong diffused light behind the neg and the camera's highest resolution is about all you can do. You could then take several shots at varying exposure settings etc

Some more observations from further enhancement of the image:

1) I'm picking up a pouch on his belt, which was probably for a light meter. There is something else hanging from his belt as well. It looks like a bag of some sort, or perhaps a plastic sheet to cover the camera in rainy weather

2) His left hand is in the same position as the focusing knob on a Rolleiflex Automat, later Rolleis and Yashicamat (The Yashicamat was released in 1957, it had crank film wind and the focusing knob on the same side as the Rollei. Before 1957, it was called Pigeonflex and had knob film wind, but had the focusing knob on the opposite side to the Rollei. So we know it wasn't a Pigeonflex your Dad was using, and a 1957 Yashicamat may have been still too expensive to buy a few years after their release. If it was an Yashicamat, he might have borrowed it as orsetto has suggested)

3) Neither of his hands are positioned in such a way as to take the weight of the camera, so it may have had a strap and it was around his neck supporting the camera

I don't think this answers anything, but for the sake of trying, here's about as close as I can get with my lens.

I don't think this answers anything, but for the sake of trying, here's about as close as I can get with my lens.

 

[ATTACH=full]1275077[/ATTACH]

From the way his head is buried in the hood; I think all that can be said with any certainty is that it was a TLR.

I can't even make out the lenses of the camera, although I think I see the outline of the front-flap of a camera case hanging down below the camera.

- More exposure doesn't add a lot to maximum density, rather it compresses the highlights. It's over-development that increases Dmax drastically.

It's not the DMax of concern. Increasing the exposure increases density in the thinner parts of the negative to bring out shadow detail. Development time mainly changes the gamma, which is another issue altogether.

Development time mainly changes the gamma, which is another issue altogether.

- But try telling that to believers in push-processing!

A complete tangent to the original topic, but since we were talking about what camera these may have been taken on, these may or may not offer some clues. I took a walk today and tried to reproduce some of the photos using my D7200. I tried to frame the shots vertically, knowing I'd crop the sides to be square to match later. I tried to match the shots as best I could, but having a viewfinder that is both not square and not waist-level was tough. Not sure if he actually had a camera where he could switch lenses, since it seems like some may have been taken with a ~70mm lens and others an ~85mm lens, or if I was just off that much in my locations. Although I think the photos below were taken in *almost* exactly the same positions, based on how the buildings line up.

I thought it was a cool comparison regardless.

1961:

2018, shot at 22mm (equivalent to about 85mm on 6x6):

1961:

2018, shot at 18mm (equivalent to about 70mm on 6x6):

As a side note, I picked up my Coolscan 8000 today.

Nikon Scan decided to not cooperate on my Mac Pro(a friend is suggesting reinstalling Snow Leopard since the error logs seem to point to possibly a corrupt Rosetta install) but I've done a fair bit with it in Vuescan this evening. I also gave it a quick try with Nikon Scan both on a MacBook and on a G4 tower I had set up-the former is inconvenient and the latter is WAY too slow even though I like the results from Nikon Scan better than Vuescan. I've been pulling good scans of transparencies that gave me headaches on my Epson, although I'm DEFINITELY seeing the weakness of the "tension" holders. It looks like I'm going to be watching for a glass holder...

Also, it sounds ferocious when running, but I can't argue with the results.

In any case @lukpac , nice job on "recreating" some of your dads images. Bear in mind, though, that a focal length guess MAY be the best you can do. If you're orienting the camera vertically, you need to compare the vertical angle of view for a given 35mm focal length to the horizontal on a 6x6(or 645) lens. Also, likely any MF camera your dad used would have had a simple unit focusing lens, while modern lenses often do funny things to focal length depending on focused distance(although I'd guess most of these are close to infinity).

There again, if it was a Rolleiflex it was probably a 75mm lens. I don't recall seeing a 6x6 camera with a "normal" lens longer than 80mm(that's a somewhat newer "normal" that came about with the Planars/Xenotars on Rolleiflexes, then of course Planars on Hasselblads and several other Hasselblad "copies." I think your estimation of 70-85mm is probably the closest you can get, and I wouldn't automatically ascribe differences that you see to different cameras.

Heptane might be on the light side, but its vapor pressure isn't so high.

It seems that gasoline has molecules between C4 and C12, and the smaller ones are much more volatile.

Heptane is about 5kPa vapor pressure, while gasoline is between about 50 and 100kPa.

https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/operations/documents/motor-gas-tech-review.pdf

has more than you ever wanted to know about gasoline.

Certainly one should be careful when using any flammable liquid, but heptane seems reasonably safe.

A 75 or 80mm lens would be bang in the middle of your estimated focal lengths. And using a zoom lens is going to both introduce some distortion and only give you an approximate indication of true focal length.

BTW, 6x6cm negatives aren't 60mm wide/tall. They vary between 54 and 56mm square. So you probably need to factor a multiplier of 3.5 into your calculations. Giving you equivalent focal lengths of 77 and 63mm for those shots above.

A 75mm TLR lens would be closest to those two estimates.

I think your modern pictures only confirm that a TLR was used. Whether it had a 75mm or 80mm lens could help narrow down the model, or maybe not.

The 1961 Riverside building copy looks pretty good, love the old cars, lots of sharp detail throughout the image, I'm shocked, I hadn't realized camera copying could be that good. The bounce flash must be the ideal illumination method. I think Joe is right, they're as good as a scanner can do

I've picked up more in the "selfie" of your dad, but first a question, does it get cold in Milwaukee ? He appears to be wearing ear muffs, I can see a round white object on the left side of his head, right where his ear would be

Also, with his face buried so far down in the finder, he may have been using the magnifier. If he used it often, that would explain the sharpness in every shot you've posted to date. The developing of the film is superb as well, whoever did it. You're only left with some levels adjusting to do in the darker copies, then you'll be sweet

The 1961 Riverside building copy looks pretty good, love the old cars, lots of sharp detail throughout the image, I'm shocked, I hadn't realized camera copying could be that good. The bounce flash must be the ideal illumination method. I think Joe is right, they're as good as a scanner can do

 

I've picked up more in the "selfie" of your dad, but first a question, does it get cold in Milwaukee ? He appears to be wearing ear muffs, I can see a round white object on the left side of his head, right where his ear would be

 

Also, with his face buried so far down in the finder, he may have been using the magnifier. If he used it often, that would explain the sharpness in every shot you've posted to date. The developing of the film is superb as well, whoever did it. You're only left with some levels adjusting to do in the darker copies, then you'll be sweet

FWIW, I've been using an LED light table, not a bounce flash. It's possible that a bounce flash would be better, but this still seems pretty good, and certainly good enough for what I've been doing. It's looking more like I may send them to get professionally scanned for further projects. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

Yes, it definitely gets cold in Milwaukee. I haven't looked up the weather for December 1961, but I would guess it was around freezing if not colder. It was pretty chilly as I was taking shots.

Something I just noticed that I hadn't really thought about before: the first roll of film in this series is stored in a Hasselblad negative page. Is that something that was common for the time or perhaps something that Hasselblad would have included with a camera?

For what it's worth that's the only roll stored that way. Everything else is stored in individual sleeves by strip.

Blad magazines have little V-notches that leave a tell-tale on the negative. If there are no notches, then the camera wasn't a 'blad.

Not sure that applies to the old 1000F though.

Blad magazines have little V-notches that leave a tell-tale on the negative. If there are no notches, then the camera wasn't a 'blad.

 

Not sure that applies to the old 1000F though.

It appears the 1000F did as well, based on these images:

大埔龍尾

Untitled

mercy mercy mercy

I guess it was just a page somebody had around then.