Pictures with old cameras: boxes

<p>I promised some comments about my varied family of cameras, and here's the first installment. This one concerns the least sophisticated set: one f-stop, one shutter speed and fixed focus. (Actually, there is the choice of "instantaneous" or "time" on the shutter speed, but for most purposes there really isn't a choice.) The lack of choice can be seriously limiting: there are many pictures that you just can't get. But I find it's also seriously liberating, because all you have to think about is taking the picture or not.</p><div></div>

<p>Above, they are shown open: a Kodak Brownie Junior on the left, a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye in the center and an Argus Seventy-Five on the right. (There was a recent post on the Argus, going into more detail on the camera itself.) All take 620 film, which of course is no longer made. I just re-roll 120 onto one of my 620 spools, and it has worked without trouble. All have the red window in back for checking your film advance. I'm aware sometimes this is a problem with light leaks, but I haven't had trouble. These are plastic and cardboard constructions and so they're pretty light. That, together with the slow shutter speed, means I have to consciously remember to hold still when taking a picture. Below, I show the boxes closed.</p><div></div>

<p>The Hawkeye is subject to flare if pointed too near the Sun, but doesn't do badly if you take care, and don't make big enlargements. This is a straight scan of a 5x5" print.</p><div></div>

<p>The Brownie Junior has much more trouble with flare. I suspect that there's serious fogging inside somewhere.</p><div></div>

<p>The Argus has a better lens than the other two, though I get uneasy with 10x10" prints.</p><div></div>

<p>A project I have in mind is to take one of these around my neighborhood and snap away as if I'd just received my first camera, a naive look at everything. You might have your own ideas.</p>

<p>Sounds like a great project to me.</p>

<p>Gene M is a master of old box cameras and old film ( http://www.westfordcomp.com/ ).</p>

<p>Others of us have never yet got beyond the "naive look at everything" stage. :|</p>

<p>Alan--thanks! Amazing output from those little cameras. The last one is particularly good. Thanks for sharing and can't wait to see more!<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Hello Paul, thanks for the post! Those box cameras are capable of surprising results, with a kind of elegance in their minimalistic form. And I understand what you mean about being liberated with limited options. Years ago, my aunt gave me this Ensign 116 camera.<br /> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3724/12797064795_d3e94cd12f_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I remember shooting a few rolls through it (this was the early 70s, I was a young teenager), but never knew what became of them. Some time this past year I finally stumbled on them, tucked away in a box with some other odds and ends. I developed the VP 116 film in HC-110 (Dil B)and although there was a little fog, the film turned out great.</p>

<p>Here is a frame from that roll (my grandmother's house) and it's now on my wall in 11x14 with surprising detail!</p>

<p><img id="yui_3_11_0_3_1429060246371_413" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3691/12802591573_f696f95493_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Anyway, excellent pics, show us more when you can!</p>

<p>Great job. A lot was learned (and still can be) with box cameras. </p>

<p>Ah yes, I've considered a similar project but just haven't found the time... Nice work,<strong> Alan</strong>, and thanks for the post.</p>

<p>I have 3 box cameras that were thrown with other purchases from Ebay. I always considered them as interested artifacts and never would have considered using them. Seeing these I will have to add them to my to do list.</p>

<p>The average shutter speed is 1/30 to 1/60. Would it be unwise to place a card behind the lens with a smaller hole to increase the fstop to get more appropriate exposure and more resolution with the faster films?</p>

<p><strong>Alan</strong>, thank you for posting the information and the photos. You've inspired me to find my mother's Brownie Hawkeye and do some shooting with it.</p>

<p><strong>Donald</strong>, rigging a smaller aperture would be possible. I don't think you would see an increase in resolution, but there would be a modest increase in depth of field. I played with a depth-of-field calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) by using approximate specs for the Brownie Hawkeye (f/16 and 80mm f.l.). I found that if the lens is factory-set to focus at 27 to 28 feet, the DOF is approximately 14 ft. to infinity. Using the same focus distance, but dropping the aperture to f/22 gives a DOF of about 12 ft. to infinity. Dropping it again to f/32 gives a DOF of about 9.5 ft. to infinity. So, stopping down two stops might gain around 4.5 feet of DOF close to the camera. It would be interesting to know what your actual results are if you do the modification.</p>

<p>Another reason to use fast film would be for photos in low light (without the aperture modification). With 400 ISO, you should be able to get down to EV 11 or 12 with the standard shutter. You could still shoot in bright daylight with the 400 ISO film by using a ND filter over the lens.</p>

<p>I have a Kodak "No. 2 Folding Cartridge Hawk-Eye Camera" which came with the instruction manual. This has the "I" and "B" shutter speeds, but also an aperture with "1", "2", "3", and "4" settings. <br>

Seems that they never thought about ISO 400, or likely even 100 film. For the "4" setting:</p>

<p> "No. 4 -- For time exposures outdoors in cloudy weather. Not for instantaneous exposures."</p>

<p>I will guess that the four correspond to about f/8, f/11, f/16, and f/22. The No. 4 setting should be just fine for sunny days with ISO 400 film, and probably still work for ISO 100!</p>

 

<p>An Argus 75 was ny first camera, bought new when I was 10 (shows my age). I chose it because the viewfinder was bigger than the one on a Brownie Hawkeye, also because it looked cool. As in the OP's example, results were surprisingly good. In those days 100-125 ISO b&w film was the norm, worked well in sunny or bright overcast weather.</p>

<p>Donald, at some point going to smaller apertures is going to run into diffraction effects. I'm not sure exactly when, and it's not a hard line anyway, but going beyond something like f/22 to f/32 you're certainly risking it. Also: the location of the aperture stop is important in the lens design, even when it's a simple meniscus, so it would be best if you could put the smaller aperture in the same place (which may not be feasible). I'd be interested in your results. Personally, I find that the greater speed and choices of speed in film today give the boxes a lot of flexibility, much more than when they were new.<br>

That said, there are inconveniences in using these. The viewfinder takes practice to use, and may not be bright enough if you're standing in sunlight and taking a picture of something dark. I suspect the Argus viewfinder, while much easier to use, doesn't show the full film frame. The take-up spool in the Brownie Junior is held in place by tabs around the outside, not by something sticking in the end, and so doesn't always wind tightly; it's inconvenient to have to unload in a changing bag and wind the film again!</p>

<p>Alan, Thanks never thought of diffraction issues, did think I was getting into that territory. It is just that these cameras look so simple I am probably getting ahead of myself worrying about over exposure. What I should do is shoot a roll first to see what I have before I consider anything else (duh). I am going to try it though just for fun at some point. It should not be too difficult and I was wondering if anyone else had tried it.</p>

<p>I agree with Alan that resolution is degraded by diffraction, which becomes more apparent with smaller aperture openings. With some of the basic box cameras, I would think that the limit of resolution is more determined by the simple lens, film flatness, and flare than diffraction. I wouldn't hesitate to try f/32 (or even f/45 or f/64), and not worry too much about diffraction. It might be fun to try some ISO 3200 film in a Brownie at a small aperture.</p>

<p>I have shot 400 film in daylight, and it does turn out dense, but it's usable. The best niche I've found for the Brownie Hawkeye is going out during a snowstorm. You wouldn't want to do that with your best shooter, unless you had it protected somehow; but the BH is plastic and it won't hurt to get it a bit wet (and even if it did get a bit damaged, it's not a huge investment lost). Also, the batteries don't wimp out in the cold, and the automatic exposure won't keep trying to make white snow a medium gray.</p><div></div>

<p>Motivated by Allan Cobb's story of an 11x14 print from one of this kind of camera, I went back to a recent roll (developed this morning) and scanned two frames. The one below, a larger-size version of which I'll try to upload to my portfolio here at photo.net, looks like it could handle even a decent-sized enlargement. On the other hand, the next frame is worryingly soft. There are too many variables (my primitive scanning, how steady I held the camera) to trace causes, but it seems the Hawkeye can do better than I thought.</p><div></div>

I am not sure how accurate this story is but it is said that a professional newspaper photographer (Bert Hardy) was challenged about how easy it was to take a decent photo with a modern (1951) camera. Bert hardy said give me a single speed box camera and I can still take a good photo. He used a Kodak Box Brownie and this picture proved his point and made him a lot of money.<P><I>

Photo removed. In violation of Photo.net Terms of Use. Do not post photos which you have not taken yourself.</I>

<p>I have a similar similar story. I had a friend who was a professional photographer in the early 70's and he said give me a 110 instamatic. Came back with some beautiful and actually had one published.</p>

<p>From Wikipedia<br>

"Bert Hardy rose from humble working class origins in <a title="Blackfriars, London" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars,_London">Blackfriars</a>, the eldest of seven children he left school at age 14 to work for a <a title="Chemist" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemist">chemist</a> who also processed photos. His first big sale came when he photographed<a title="George V of the United Kingdom" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom">King George V</a> and <a title="Mary of Teck" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Teck">Queen Mary</a> in a passing carriage, and sold 200 small prints of his best view of the King. Hardy freelanced for <em>The Bicycle</em> magazine, and bought his first small-format <a title="Leica Camera" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera">Leica</a> 35 mm. He signed on with the General Photographic Agency as a photographer, then found his own freelance firm Criterion.<br>

In 1941, Hardy was recruited by the editor <a title="Tom Hopkinson" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hopkinson">Tom Hopkinson</a> of the leading picture publication of the 1930s and 1940s, <em><a title="Picture Post" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_Post">Picture Post</a></em>. Hardy was self-taught and used a <a title="Leica Camera" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera">Leica</a> —unconventional gear for press photographers of the era— but went on to become the <em>Post'</em>s Chief Photographer, after he earned his first photographer credit for his 1 February 1941 photo-essay about Blitz-stressed fire-fighters.<br>

Hardy served as a <a title="War photographer" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_photographer">war photographer</a> in the <a title="Army Film and Photographic Unit" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Film_and_Photographic_Unit">Army Film and Photographic Unit</a> (AFPU) from 1942 until 1946: he took part in the <a title="D-Day" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day">D-Day</a> landings in June 1944; covered the liberation of Paris; the allied advance across the <a title="Rhine" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine">Rhine</a>; and was one of the first photographers to enter the liberated <a title="Bergen-Belsen concentration camp" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp">Belsen</a> to record the suffering there. He also saved some <a title="Russians" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians">Russian</a> slaves from a fire set by German police in the city of <a title="Osnabrück" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osnabr%C3%BCck">Osnabrück</a>, before photographing the aftermath.<br>

Near the end of World War II, Hardy went to Asia, where he became Lord Mountbatten's personal photographer. He later went on the cover the <a title="Korean War" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War">Korean War</a> along with journalist <a title="James Cameron (journalist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron_(journalist)">James Cameron</a> for <em>Picture Post</em>, reporting on United Nations atrocities<sup >[<em><a title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed">citation needed</a></em>]</sup> at <a title="Pusan" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusan">Pusan</a> in 1950, and later and on that war's turning point, the <a title="Battle of Inchon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon">Battle of Inchon</a>, photojournalism for which he won the Missouri Pictures of the Year Award.<br>

Three of Hardy's photos were used in <a title="Edward Steichen" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Steichen">Edward Steichen</a>'s famous <em>Family of Man</em> exhibition and book, though not his favourite photo —which shows two street urchins off on a lark in <a title="Gorbals" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbals">Gorbals</a> —it nevertheless has come to represent Hardy's documentary skill. Hardy himself was photographed many times, including during the war; three very good photo-portraits of him are currently in the Photographs Collection of the <a title="National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(United_Kingdom)">National Portrait Gallery</a>.<br>

Having written an article for amateur photographers suggesting that you didn't need an expensive camera to take good pictures, <strong>Hardy staged a carefully posed photograph of two young women sitting on railings above a breezy Blackpool promenade using a <a title="Brownie (camera)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)">Box Brownie</a> in 1951, a photograph which has since become an iconic image of post-war Britain</strong>.<sup id="cite_ref-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Hardy#cite_note-1">[1]</a>"</sup></p>

I can thoroughly recommend Bert Hardy Book My Life. It is full of atmospheric pictures. A delight.

<p>Thanks.I will look up Bert Hardy....my interest is piqued! I too love the Box cameras, and I think that your post is a great idea, certainly has encouraged me to use some Box cameras again....just loaded up my favourite....the Portrait Brownie.<br>

Another benefit of using a Brownie is when you download your pics you can click on Brownie in PDN and it will be correct!</p>