Kodak Medalist Camera for pre-Pearl Harbor Reenactment

[karl_borowski]

Hello, I know this is a little bit off topic for this thread, but I want a real, vintage camera to use in a

reenactment we do every year around Pearl Harbor's Day, and I came upon a bit of information in my 1947

Naval Photography guide about the Kodak Medalist. As of 1947, it was being assigned to outfits too small

to carry a staff photographer. Fortunately, it went in production in 1941, so it is "legal" for this event.

What I was wondering was what sort of flash support was available for the model I of the medalist in 1941?

Internet and text resources I've looked through are quite vague. I have no problem firing off flashbulbs,

but I can't seem to find any information as to what type of synch or shoe or whatever the thing will take

for flashbulbs. I also am curious if anyone knows if it'd be out of place for a military man to have a brand

new, expensive camera for taking snapshots off base. If this camera is out of place for such a function,

does anyone know of an equally high-quality camera (preferably roll-film sized) that I could use instead

that takes flashbulbs?

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

[john_shriver]

I think you have a basic anchronism considering using flashbulbs in a recreation of an event in 1941. Kodak consumer cameras just didn't come with flash synchronized shutters then.

 

The Medalist I had no flash sync. Only the Medalist II, introduced in 1948 did. Plus, the Medalist is too expensive a camera for an elisted man to afford.

 

A more typical, but still quality rollfilm camera of 1941 would be the Vigilant. The best ones had Kodak Anastigmat lenses. But, no flash sync then, that was a post-war feature.

 

The Flash Bantam, an 828 camera, came out in 1946.

 

Flash pictures, with the big Edison-base flash bulbs, were really still the province of press photographers, with their big Speed Graphic cameras. These didn't use flash-synchronized shutters, instead the flash gun powered a solenoid to open the shutter after a short delay.

 

From a tiny bit of poking around on the web, it looks like the #5 flashbulb (the first bayonet mount bulb of modest cost) was new in 1939. It took camera makers a while to react.

 

Here's a great resource that should help:

 

http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/Kodak_index2.htm

[bueh]

Alternative cameras: <b><a href="http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/graphic-models.html" target="_NEW">Graflex Speed Graphic</a></b> (Miniature, Anniversary, Pre-Anniversary, etc.) or <b><a href="http://www.graflex.org/articles/series-d/" target="_NEW">Graflex RB Series D</a></b>. Or Rolleiflex and Leica, of course.

[michaelging]

John is correct the Medalist was issued to Navel officers during WWII . I was given one by a Naval Fighter Pilot. Their main use was to document things like damage to a ship.

[jack-b]

Karl You could get an Argus C-3 with a flash gun that plugs into the side of the camera. They were made from 1938 till 1958. They all look alike to the average person only an expert could tell what year it was made. They use 35mm film black or white or color. The flash bulb size is #5.You can find them at flea markets, thrift shops yard sales and E-bay. A working one can be borght for $5 to $30. Average price $10. Look at lens should be clear and try shutter. Small tear drop lever on front of camera sets it. Yours should be a black one. Jack

[Rick_van_Nooij]

It would depend on what kind of soldier you are portraying. Signal Corps photographer units pretty much only had the Speed Graphic and the Kodak 35 (PH-324) for field use.

Other Official US Army Photographers and soldiers carrying cameras would have had a broad range, from Kodaks to Argusses (Argi?), Leicas, Speed Graphics, all kinds of TLRs and brownies. you name it.

The private purchase cameras carried by the enlisted men were cheaper than those carried by the professionals.

 

I know that some of the first batch of British army photographers were issued Medallists, mainly for color photography.

 

If I was to portray a soldier walking around taking snapshots at Pearl I'd probably go for my Argus C-3 with flash attachment.

 

I hope that helps. Good luck,

 

Rick

[charles_stobbs3]

Flash synchronizers were a separate attachment in those days, not built in the shutter.(Except for the Argus C3 and maybe a few others). I had one for my folding Kodak Vigilant. I think Kalart, among others, made them.

[karl_borowski]

Isn't miniature film a little small for early '40s emulsions? Most of the prints I have from

that era are velox (contact) prints from 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negatives, which seem to be their

equivalent of snapshot technology. The smallest size I've seen in B&W from '41 is 2 1/4x

1 3/4. So let me get this straight: there were NO amateur pictures taken with flash until

after the start of WWII? I never knew that. Ålso, since I am a pro photographer myself, I

was kinda going to play off having a medalist as having "borrowed it" from the base. One

other thing though, I'm army air force, not navy. Did all brances of the service have

Medalists, or just Navy & Marines?

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[Charles_Webster]

Hmmm, a little off topic, but this site (http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/620FB-1.html) shows a Kodak Brownie Six-20 Flash being made in 1940. It took Edison (Screw) base #11 flash bulbs, but mine has an adapter to the bayonet-base #5 flash bulbs.

 

So, my point is that, flash in consumer cameras was not unknown in 1941, and was certainly affordable (original price $4.50).

 

It also looks as though the Argus C3 had flash synch right from the beginning in 1939. They were much more expensive and were probably out of reach for an enlisted man.

 

<Chas>

[doug grosjean]

Slightly OT, an excellent article about the use of the Medalist in the Navy aboard ship:

 

http://www.de220.com/DE%20Index/DE340%20O'Flaherty/USS%20O'Flaherty%20(DE-340).htm

 

I have a Medalist and love it, but it weighs a ton.

 

I also have an Argus C3, and if I was going to carry one around all day as part of a costume, it would be the Argus. The Kodak is amazingly heavy - have you lugged one around any length of time?

 

Also, I've read that the Kodak was about $300 new back then, the Argus about $12, a Rollieflex about $160. FWIW...

[jack-b]

Karl Here is some more information that might help. A very short list of 35mm cameras before and during WW II. Robot,screw mount Leicas,Contax,Ansco Memo 3 versions,Argus K 1939,Argus A 1936, USN Submarine Periscope Mark 1 Camera (Kodak)1943,Retina 1935,and the list goes on. Two cameras I have that were carried by soldiers in WWII Weltin and Photovit both 35mm. A Argus C-3 cost about $25 new in 1939. Leica and Contax about $150 plus. Some of these could be rigged for flash but the early C-3 came ready to use. The simple flash pluged into the side. These were concidered Mini Cameras and very few pros would ever use one back then 4 X 5 was the standard. Jack

[alan_chin]

medalist is a fine ww II era camera but it uses 620 film, which you can respool from

120, have the camera expensively converted also.

.

by far the best military photography in the US forces during WW II was Edward

Steichen's naval photographic unit. From 1943-45 they have an extraordinary high

quality record of the Pacific naval campaign.

.

for land forces you're better portraying a LIFE magazine photographer like Robert

Capa or George Rodger! Capa typically worked with two Contax II cameras and a

Rolleiflex, Rodger used Leicas.

.

for a cheap but visually accurate re-enactment you can use Kiev and Fed copies of

Contax and Leica cameras.

.

flash-bulbs in the front line would be a no-no!

.

David Douglas Duncan as a US Marine photographer used a Zeiss Super Ikonta. that's

another good option. uses 120 film. expensive to get a pre-war one into shape.

.

i've been photographing re-enactments with Leica M from the 1950s. not accurate,

but at least they're chrome and the lens signatures of summicrons and summarons

are close to WW II era, albeit improved.

.

been eyeing getting Contaxes. but prices on them are going up and up! how great

would that be, though, to have a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar on one and a 35mm f/2.8

Biogon on the other, and a 85mm in your pouch.

[dave_whoami]

Dad, an enlisted man, carried his Welta Perle, when he was in Operation Torch and on up into Sicily, Italy, etc. It didn't have a flash though, and of course color film will be a very improbable no-no for a Pearl Harbor reenactment.

[dave_whoami]

Something from the era. Taken by Dad in North Africa. Recognize anyone?

[tri-x1]

I suspect mostenlisted men in 1941 would have been using cheap box cameras.

[Rick_van_Nooij]

I would imagine so. And They would not have bothered with flash.

If you really want to use one with your medallist...didn't the Signal Photography corps have separate flash units? A battery hung over the shoulder connected to a flashgun through a flexible wire.

 

Color film was rare at the start of the war, and during the war the entire Kodak supply went straight to the Military.

 

Some interesting books on War Photographery:

"The U.S.Army Photoalbum"

"Camera At War"

[alan_chin]

i forgot to mention, also, the prewar Plaubel Makina cameras, these were popular in

europe and with british correspondents, the photos of the Prince Of Wales and the

Repulse sinking after Japanese air attack were taken by a british reporter with one of

these, equiped either with a 6x9 120 rollfilm back or sheet film back. And don't

forget Speed Graphics, if i'm not mistaken, Joe Eisenstadt used one for the Marine flag

raising on Iwo Jima.

[dave_whoami]

Sigh, yup, General Doolittle.

[tri-x1]

The Speed Graphic was the camera of choice for nearly all American service and, for the most part, news photographers during that period. The Iwo Jima picture was taken with a Speed Graphic.

 

There might have been a few Arguses floating around in civilian hands in those days but the good old box camera was the instrument of choice -- especially if you were an enlisted person making something like $16 a month. Might have been more cameras in the Navy but the average Dogface or Marine didn't have any place to carry a camera with all the GI issure stuff he was required to carry.

 

I haven't seen very many photos taken by service men from that period. The folks back home would send photos to the troops but I seriously doubt there were many pictures going the other direction until the war was over. A lot of occupation force members seemed to have cameras, however. That's when a lot off Americans discovered Japanese and German gear.

[karl_borowski]

OK, a couple of misconceptions have popped up here for some reason. Allow me to

reclarify: this is for a gig that is going to be indoors at night where I want to take actual

pictures that look good. I AM NOT portraying a professional photography in the Army Air

Force, but I have no problem with carrying around equipment that would have been

beyond the means of an enlisted man because it could have easily been "borrowed" from a

pro photographer on the base. This is not an official reenactment either, it is an event

where a group of people get together in period dress and have dinner at the 100th Bomb

Group Restaurant in Brookpark Ohio. Also, this is set right before Pearl Harbor. We had

the gathering on Pearl Harbor's Eve last year, and will probably be doing much the same

this year, so this is not going to be any sort of elaborate reenactment, but I still want to

get it right. Did most amateurs simply not take pictures indoors at night back then? I've

looked through my grandfather's velox contact prints, and they are all daytime outdoors.

He shot almost entirely 616 and 620 BTW, so this is why I am really hesitant about 35mm.

To put this in modern perspective, 35mm was probably viewed much the same way as

digital was when it initially came out, as an inferior format which is suitable for some

things, but is not the same level of quality as MF film (which was and is true). Can

someone please explain exactly how a flashgun works and where I can find one that takes

bulbs that are still cheaply available? Another option I guess I have with this camera is

setting the lens on bulb, opening it, flashing, and then manually closing. I seem to recall

that technique being elicited in the '47 Naval photography guide as a method of using a

non-synch camera at night.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

[karl_borowski]

So, to summarize, what do you folks think is a good folding camera (which seems more in

line with the time period than an ancient box camera) that'd be suitable for this event?

 

~Karl

[alan_chin]

if you like folding cameras the best of that period really is either the Zeiss Super

Ikonta or the Plaubel Makina. These are top of the line. Coupled rangefinders, fast

lenses, full range of shutter speeds.

 

The best other medium format option, and not too expensive if you search, is a

Rolleiflex. Put a new focusing screen in, a filter and a hood on the taking lens, usually

a new strap, and you're ready to go with 120 film.

 

Flash sync even for flash bulbs was usually an after-market add on, either with a

standard PC socket or those metal pins you see on a lot of old cameras. if you google

for flashbulbs i'm sure you see quickly what is available. the flash guns to mount the

bulbs in are all over eBay, no problem. usually they do not use the

accessory shoe of a camera but rather attach with a bracket. Leica did make a small

gun that fit into the shoe, but you're going for medium format.

 

Remember that your shutter must be set to "M" for flash-bulb sync, as opposed to "X"

for electronic strobe flash. leaf shutters such as in the Ikontas and Rolleiflexes will

sync at all speeds.

[alan_chin]

regarding 35mm, by WW II it was already in wide use with news magazine

photographers such as Robert Capa or Henri Cartier-Bresson. Leicas and Contaxes

did not come with factory flash sync but many had it added. Contax II or Leica IIIa.

You can get away with a post-war Leica IIIf which has built in sync, it looks almost the

same. Not the post-war Contax IIa, though, that looks different. However the USSR

made post-war Kiev IIa has built-in sync, otherwise it looks exactly the same as a

Contax II, and you can get a good example with lens for $99.

 

make sure you bring a cloth or a hankerchief, the flashbulbs are still hot after you

shoot, photographers would remove it with a cloth. in those days of pre-

enviornmental awareness many photographers, outdoors, would just toss their spent

flashbulbs onto the ground where they would get crunched. you don't see this in old

movies!

[john_smullen]

If your goal is to take quality pictures with a camera that looks like it fits into the 1940's timeframe, then I would not horse around with the medalist or other large camera. Instead use a Kodak Retina or Agfa Solinette folder and they will look "period", take excellent pictures and be much much easier to carry and operate.

 

I don't understand the reluctance to use 35mm...it was certainly available back then. Do you think that anyone in this audience will really know or care that a functioning prop like a 35mm folding camera is not technically right.

 

To be honest if your goal is to create a permanent record of this event then you should have someone else shooting lots of keeper pictures with a digital camera. I know that's heresy, and my Canon VtDeluxe is shuddering at the thought, but it is practical. You could continue to play the part and run off a rolls or two on a Kodak Retina IIb or Ia.

[jim_stuart]

One of the low-priced cameras sold in the PX was the Mercury Univex (1938) and others by the Universal Camera

Company of NYC. The Mercury was fully flash capable. It even had a hot shoe.

The Mercury II (post war) looks about like it, but uses modern film loads. These cameras and flash

units can usually be found on eBay for 10 - 20 USD.

 

...but I would take the C3..