Recomar 33 with found film

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by john_shriver, Feb 6, 2005.

  1. The Recomar 33 I recently got on eBay for $5.50 (plus $13 shipping) came with a 9x12cm Tri-X film pack with tabs 10-12 still hanging out. It came with another unused pack that expired in September 1962, so I presume this film was the same age. I shot the last three frames, and developed it. Nasty process removing the paper strips that glue the film to the pull sheets. Some paper stays on the negatives, and shrinks when they dry. Turns out the prior owner of the camera is also a photo gear head. Most of the pictures are still lifes of cameras! But, first, there is a still life of a 60's modern chess set.
  2. Now, off to the gear shots. Start with a Bolex B8L.
  3. Then a baby Rolleiflex. Serial number 2021407?
  4. Then (way cool), a Zenobia, 6x4.5 size.
  5. But, finally, he turns a camera on a human subject. A little girl with her stuffed monkey and a wooden toy radio. Exposure was a bit off (I had to work with curves a bit), but it's a very sweet photograph. I contacted the seller (one of those "we auction it" places), it's been through too many hands to track down the original owner. Whoever this is would be in their late 40's by now. Amazing how well this Tri-X has held up over the years. Base fog is absolutely minimal. The exposures I took do show that it has lost a lot of speed -- the good exposure was f/16 at 1/25. While I presume that the other pack of Tri-X is equally good, I think I'll just buy some new 9x12 film from J&C Photo.
  6. What a great find. The subjects make me think the film pack may have represented the owner's test run of the camera. Perhaps, like some of us, he just had too many cameras to give adequate attention to this one, which clearly delivers excellent quality. Nice that it fell into the hands of someone who knows what to do with it.
  7. Great work and great rescue of old images! <BR><BR>Tri-X Pan Pro was available in film packs still in 1976; in 2 1/4 x3 1/4; 3 1/4 x 4 1/4; and 4x5 inch sizes from Kodak. They were 16 exposures per pack; and listed for 6.45; 8.40; and 8.40 bucks. These films were asa 320; and had a matte retouching surface on both sides.
  8. The first chess photo reminds me of the chess photos my pro neighbor shot in Detroit; in the early 1960's.
  9. Great find and more inspiration for me to try 9x12 format. So sad about the film packs though. They must have been pretty convenient to use.
  10. So sad about the film packs though. They must have been pretty convenient to use.
    Next best thing to a Grafmatic -- better in some respects, as they held more film and weren't prone to bent septa -- and they were available in every sheet film format from at least 4x5 down to 6.5x9, possibly even 6x4.5 (yes, there were sheet film holders and at least a couple cameras that used sheet film in that size). As John suggested, they were something of a pain to process, but the main reason they disappeared was probably simple lack of demand. With the increasing prevalence of roll film and then 35 mm, large format cameras were simply not something that was in heavy use outside press photography -- and by the 1960s, even photojournalists were mostly shooting medium format or 35 mm, with just a few still clinging to their Speed Graphics. It's probably not a coincidence that the Speed and pack film were discontinued about the same time.
    I suspect the adhesive on the paper backing for the films has gotten more tenacious with time, like old tape that either dries out and falls off, or becomes impossible to remove. Still, if I had a film pack adapter and could get packs, I'd very much like to try pack film in my 9x12 cameras. They were the press cameras of Europe when the Speed was at its peak in America, almost every one you see on eBay now has a film pack adapter (usually in exclusion of ground glass and plate holders), and there's something to be said for being able to load once and shoot a dozen to sixteen exposures before the pack is done (and do it as fast as you can pull and tear the tabs and recock the shutter), and still wind up with a large format negative when you're done.
  11. Oh, I developed the film in HC-110 dilution B per times on a 1965 Kodak Tri-X film sheet. In 1" plastic tubes in a 32 ounce tank, 6 sheets per load. That is a lot of developer per sheet, a whole ounce of HC-110 syrup in the tank. But you can't think about economy and shoot large format.

    This film is definitely Tri-X, not Tri-X Professional.
  12. very interesting shots. i like the look from that lens -- is it a schneider or a zeiss jena lens?

    aside from that, the monkey is creepy.
  13. Good work John.

    There is nothing who can beat Tri-X!
  14. The lens on the Recomar is a Kodak Anastigmat, 135mm f/4.5. The construction is clearly a Tessar, there's a ghostly third reflection in the rear cemented group.

    No idea if Kodak really made the lens, or whether Kodak/Nagel subcontracted it from a German maker. A Nagel Recomar 33 (pre-Kodak) that was recently offered on eBay had a Nagel Doppel Anastigmat.

    Please don't complement me on these pictures, they're the latent images that came with the camera! My own shots were just of the front of my house in bright sunlight, to measure the film speed. Too boring to scan & post.
  15. Zehr gut !
  16. Time machine!
  17. I am impressed by the quality of shots you got. My results with mid 60's film has been less than stellar. Way way too much fogging, a condition you seemed to have avoided. Perhaps this is last of the run (1978 or so) film?

    As far as bringing back film packs, I find the film handling to be onerous. The film is very thin, hard to handle without creases, and just enough off sized that it doesn't fit in standard negative development racks. Picky me.

    Anyhow congrats on a job well done.

    tim in san jose

Share This Page