616 adapter

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by Donald Harpold, Jun 20, 2021.

  1. They look like good quality adapters.

    Some I've bought, I've had to use my Dremel to make the winding spindle fit deeper, the slot was so shallow, the winding handle was still 1/8" up in the air. With my old Kodak folder, light can get past the spindle and there's not much in the camera in the way of a light baffle.

    The original 616 spool is hollow, which permits the winding spindle to go into the slot as deep as it likes. That can't happen with a thin polymer adapter. Theoretically, If the winding spindle was to go into the adapter anymore than what the design of the adapter allows, it would interfere with the key at the bottom of the adapter, the bit that fits into the spool. Your winding knob on your Target, may stay out a little as well. If it does, wrap something around it to reduce the potential of a light leak.
     
  2. 116 film has a wider flange than 616 film. If you dont use the wider flange on 616 cameras, the roll of 120 will foul against the film magazine.
     
  3. Good point Greg but Donald's box camera is 616 and the 120 spool flange is 1mm larger in diameter than the 616 flange so the 120 may be alright as long as the winding spindle catches the keyed slot in the adapter. Otherwise, that 1mm will have to be filed off the 120's flanges. The 90 degree tabs are to stop the spools from wandering around inside the camera, and those tabs will also play a part in whether the slightly larger 120 spools will fit snugly enough to not cause problems.

    Further to that, if the 90 degree tabs are too short to support 120 spools, the spools would miss them and the hexagon adapters will ride on them instead.




    Target spool placement.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2021
    James Bryant likes this.
  4. If it's a 616 camera then I would expect the 620 spool would fit nicely, but who wants to mess about respooling 120 to 620. A 120 film should fit nicely between 116 spools. Give it a try and see, I know I had some trouble with the adaptors that I 3d printed. I can't find any film spool data at the moment.
     
  5. Hello All
    I have bought some of the adapters that Hunter referenced and will report back after I give them a try.
    It is a 616 camera NOT a 116.
    Thanks
    Don

    BTW
    If you have photos from a 616 or 620 box Kodak Box camera on 120 I would appreciate seeing them.
     
  6. Hello
    Update:
    I ran a roll of 120 in the Target Six-16 with the "bay" adapters, I had to use a little sand paper on them to get the burrs off from the printing, I also had to bend the little 90 degree tabs so they would center but it did work but was a little hard to turn the knob, so I did a little more on the adapters and I have another roll in the camera and it works a lot better, you can even see the frame numbers.

    I haven't had a chance to develop the roll, which is TMax 400 expired in 2002, the roll in the camera now is Delta 100 from the same date.

    Since there is no way to use an ASA should I develop the film at the box speed time shown on MassDev?

    Thanks
    Don
     
  7. How did you space the frames ? 120 numbers are useless in a 616 camera. A used 120 film with backing paper needs to be run through the tin film holder marking 616 frames plus frame space on the backing paper and counting the turns for each individual frame as you go, the turns will vary for each frame. Use a screwdriver to wind the film each frame. Write those turns down on a card for reference, then stick black tape over the red peep hole.

    Develop at normal time and see what you get, but your Tmax 400 may be over-exposed in that old box camera, so slightly less development time might be warranted. The Delta 100 will probably be ok ... but with both films, the correct aperture setting is critical for bright sunlight, and for shadow areas.

    The shutter speed is 1/50sec and the two aperture settings are f16 and f22

    Link ... Kodak Brownie Target Six-16 |Art Deco Cameras
     
  8. Hello Kmac
    Thanks for the link,

    "How did you space the frames ? 120 numbers are useless in a 616 camera"

    I used the frame numbers 3, 5-1/2, 8, 10-1/2, 13, 15-1/2, and got 6 shots spaced approx 1/4 inch that are 6X11 in size.

    The shots taken midday look good, on the neg, I haven't scanned them yet so don't know if the they are sharp edge to edge or??? as far as being overexposed they look ok I did take a couple in the evening that look under.

    I will post a couple when scanned.
    Don
     
  9. Yes, let's see some pics. Post the aperture "f" number too if you can remember which one you used.
     
  10. Ok
    Here are the photos from the Kodak Six-16 using the adapters for a roll of 120, the film is TMax 400 developed in HC110b. All shots taken with the tab down so f/16 Six-16 Trees and Sky.jpg Tree.jpg Oak and Ivy.jpg

    I am very happy with the results, the corners are soft as I expected but overall not bad. I may at some point make a mask to hold the film flat, I suspect this causes the soft corners but mat be the lens? but that would be a project for a later day as there are too many cameras waiting for a test run (been finding a lot of cameras at yard/garage/flea markets lately).

    Thanks for the help and for any criticism
    Don

    logs.jpg

    driveway.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2021
    Mike Gammill and James Bryant like this.
  11. Great results

    No criticism, they look fine.
     
  12. The sets I got from ??? did not really work very well but in my "fly by the seat of your pants" style.. Par! I have both a 616 and a 116 folder. The 616 is a Kodak Jiffy with a Twindar lens...seems it was a depression era entry level folder. and the bellows is really too far gone. I wasted two rolls of film trying and I got some results.. but given the the cost of film... ? The 116 is an Kodak Autograph that is from the 20s I suppose. The bellows are ok, but the ruby windows are not ready for modern panchromatic film as I learned, but I did like the lens. it was only marked Anastigmat. .


    2017-07-29-0003a.jpg

    Only image without light leak..Quite soft ..film flatness?? cheap lens? bad photographer....archivist low standards etc

    2017-07-28-0001cSIZE.jpg

    Also soft ..


    2017-07-15-0005cSIZE.jpg

    Autographic 616
    Note the banding visible in the upper right..this is fogging . The bands represent each wind..also the lightness ie fogging top and especially bottom edge.. light leaking but not from bellows


    2017-07-15-0006cSIZE.jpg
    Autographic 116

    Same as above; banding and fogging on the edges - The next roll I applied yarn to the complete interfaces and tried to block the ruby windows as I believe they were fogging the frame on wind-on


    2017-07-22-0002.jpg

    a big improvement.. :)


    My spacers were not finished at all they were simply spacers. I had to jury rig the interface to the wind "key" . I flubbed the first one and had to redo it on another of the four I ordered. I then dubbed the flubb, as one for the take-up spool . I told myself I'd come back to this.. but I haven't ...until now.. I do like the panoramic view a lot and the Anastigmat does ok for a 1920s optic!
     
    James Bryant likes this.
  13. Hello Chuck
    That last one looks like you got it worked out and you are good to the edge on the sharpness.

    I do like the panorama format also
    Don
     
  14. "Hello Chuck
    That last one looks like you got it worked out and you are good to the edge on the sharpness.

    I do like the panorama format also
    "


    Hi Don,

    Thanks for replying.. Unfortunately it took two rolls to sort and due to the increased length the flatness does become acute. I keep telling myself I'm going to invest in those after-market negative carriers... they just aren't getting cheaper :) The earlier Anastigmat from the 20s was MUCH better than the Twindar from the "Jiffy" early 30s, though both have been corrected for stigma
     

Share This Page