No. 2 Hawk-Eye Model C

[va3uxb]

<p>I just received my newest oldest camera, the Kodak Rainbow No. 2 Hawk-Eye, Model C. In beautiful red. From what I've read, this was originally designed in 1913 but was re-released in 1930.</p>

<p><img src="http://planetstephanie.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Kodak_No_2_Mod_C-565x486.jpg" alt="" width="565" height="486" /></p>

<p>My research suggests that the shutter speed is probably about 1/30th but I was unable to find any further technical / exposure information. I took some measurements and guessed the aperture at about f/6, but after seeing the results I think it maybe has a smaller aperture rating, like f/8 or f/11.</p>

<p>I was eager to see how the camera would perform so I rushed a roll through it as soon as I got home from work. I used Shanghai GP3 (ISO 100 - Developed for 7:30 in T-Max 1:4) as I have oodles of it. Based on my guesstimate of the exposures, the heavy-overcast weather seemed like it would be ideal. </p>

<p><img src="http://planetstephanie.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/No2_test_003-399x600.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://planetstephanie.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/No2_test_006-565x372.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Those shots, under an overcast sky and in my heavily shaded backyard, came out rather too dark. I took some out the front which is not shaded and the sky was in the process of clearing a bit so perhaps light overcast, which proved much more appropriate lighting for this camera.</p>

<p><img src="http://planetstephanie.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/No2_test_008-401x600.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I am curious, if anyone knows what the actual aperture rating is for these cameras? And also, what would the typical film speed have been, back then?</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>Another quick question I just remembered - the viewfinder on this camera is absolutely tiny, and very hard to see through. I can't tell if it is fogged / dirty, or if that is just normal for "brilliant finders". </p>

<p>Are these cameras known for having hard-to-use finders?</p>

 

[dave_g1]

<p>I don't think these have brilliant finders, I think they have ground glass. And yes if it is the ground glass kind, it is known to be very hard to compose with.</p>

<p>As for the shutter speed... really what is the point? They all worked slightly differently when new, but it'll be somewhere between 1/25 and 1/75 usually. Just shoot with it and find out. These were meant to be used in bright sunlight with the slow films of the day (under 50ASA).</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Even if the films available are a bit fast, you can experiment holding a neutral density filter over the lens (I played around with an ND4 for a while but my calculations were off with the light conditions. Further experimentation is required on my part).</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>That's a very attractive camera, <strong>Stephanie</strong>, and the pic of the church exceeds my expectations of it's capabilities. From my slender experience with box cameras of this era, a dull overcast day produces far better results than bright sun, not only in terms of exposure but also in respect of the rendition of tone that the old lenses were capable of. And yes, the viewfinders give a whole new meaning to "point and shoot"... Let's see some more from this pretty old camera!</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>Aperture in these box cameras is usually f/11. Shutter speed when new, probably around 1/50. So, a sunny day w/ ISO 100 film would work, with a tendency toward overexposure.</p>

[va3uxb]

<p>Thanks for all the feedback and info!</p>

<p>Re. the numbers, I know they're not important and the first roll has already revealed more than numbers could but... I like numbers. (And specs and details.)</p>

<p>It's going to be another light overcast day today, so I'll try some colour film next and see how that goes. </p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

[alexander_n2]

<p>I was glad to see someone else using this camera. I have this camera as well, and mine is a more muted reddish brown.<br /> Here is a photograph I took using Arista edu 100 black and white film developed in Caffenol.<br>

I can't even use the viewfinder, it is totally dirty or the mirror is oxidized. I just point the front of the camera to the subject and hope for the best.<br>

Alex</p><div></div>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>If you need to service these cameras, it is simple. Pull the little nails (brads) out that are along the sides of the "front". Then the "face" pulls off and you see the hairpin/disc shutter. The viewfinder mirror is accessable and you can replace it if necessary as well as clean the lens and ground glass of the viewfinder using Q-Tips. Do not forget to clean the main lens as well.</p>

[jim_gibbons]

<p>What Tom said. Take it apart and look at the mirror it WILL at least need a cleaning as old as this is. All my box cameras are black so consider yourself lucky! :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Looks like it turned out OK.<br>

Beautiful camera.</p>

<p>Even when they were new, you couldn't tell much with the so-called 'finder' as I recall. My Grandmother had a black one.</p>

<p>I tried to see if I could pull a little more shadow detail out, but not much luck.</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Great find. I have several box cameras, but none as pretty as yours. In the day that this camera was made ISO 25 would have been (IIRC from reading photo history) a typical film speed. That would make a bright sun exposure around 1/25 at f16. If the camera has an f11 lens and a 1/50 second shutter that would be about right for a film of that kind. Serious photographers of the day might have taken advantage of the generous safety factor that black & white film had and exposed such film as if it were around ISO 50.</p>

[rdm]

<p>I am always so happy to see someone else running film through one of these old cameras instead of putting them on a shelf somewhere.<br>

I get some grief from friends, family and professors when ever i bust out one of my old antique box cameras or simple folders. Even tho i love old cameras and know they are not the best choice i have for quality medium format photographic equipment, I think they should still be used if you have one. People who buy them just for decoration To me would be like having a classic car and not ever wanting to put gas in it.</p>

[dave_g1]

<p>Box cameras will take excellent photos when the conditions are right.<br>

I think most people have a low opinion of box cameras because they think about those cruddy plastic wonders from the 50 and 60s. (although there were a couple good ones from that era too, but most are really very awful)<br>

"Real" box cameras made of wood and with glass lenses can produce very nice results (again provided the conditions are right). I have an Ansco No. 2 that produces decently sharp images, with no noticeable barrel distortion despite the meniscus lens. And of course the tones with a 6x9 negative are wonderful.<br>

With modern films like Tmax and Acros the usefulness of old boxes and simple folders has expanded greatly.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I saw this a while back but wasn't able to comment . I think you got great results. A lot has already been said about the different finders. they are often little to no comfort in actually composing. I tend to just point and hope for the best. The lenses are best at about eight to ten feet although I've seen some models and lenses that deliver great DOF and are excellent stopped down. I found 400 ASA on lightly overcast days bring good results and often nice bright contrast photos with the sun on your back lighting the scene with 100 ASA will also bring nice results. I really liked your photos and suspect that the shadows have more detail than can be seen here

[va3uxb]

<p>Thanks for all the info and feedback! I do love this camera, and took it out yesterday for some shooting but the entire event was a disaster. My sister and I were going to visit a 'scenic' location, a small waterfall we'd heard about. It was a bright sunny day (blue sky, hard shadows) so I loaded the camera with ISO 100 film and figured the exposure lattitude could handle being overexposed a bit.</p>

<p>When we got to where our directions led us, it turned out that the waterfall was at the end of a short but arduous hike, and neither of us were prepared. I took a hard tumble on the way there, the Hawk-Eye went flying several feet, hit the ground then rolled another dozen feet or so. Surprisingly and happily, the camera was completely uninjured, unlike myself.</p>

<p>I hobbled on though, determined to get to the waterfall. When we finally reached it, I completely failed to clue in to the fact that although the sun was shining brightly, we and the falls were completely under dense forest cover. So I happily snapped and wound my way through the roll of film, and recorded nothing at all. The only frame that came out was the one I shot before we left, of my sister and her dog. The rest of the negatives were all but blank, save for a few of the faintest shadows, where some sunlight had managed to filter through to illuminate a bit of foliage here and there.</p>

<p>I did have a second camera with me and a few of those shots were passable, but they belong in another thread.</p>

<div></div>

[va3uxb]

<p>Here is some faint dark blurry proof that the Hawk-Eye did get to the waterfall.</p><div></div>