828

[donald_miller5]

I have a Kodak Bantam vintage 1938 with the horizontal folding bellows which uses 828 film All I find available is b&w and it is pricey.

 

1 any suggestion on where I can find more reasonable prices and maybe some color options?

 

2 Is it worth the effort to cut down 620 and rewind rather the purchase from a commercial source?

 

3 I have a light leak in the bellows which I can easily repair but let's face it with time they will to turn to dust. What are my alternatives

regarding making my own or what is on the market regarding this?

[john_shriver]

<p>For film, the choices are slitting down 120 film, or reloading 828 paper with 35mm film. For a while 100 foot rolls of expired Portra 160NC unperforated 35mm were fairly common on eBay.<br>

Never seen anyone selling old-stock replacement bellows for Bantams. Only the Bantam Special would be worth making a bellows for, even that one it might be most practical to cannibalize a cheaper Bantam if it was the same size.<br>

Any custom-made bellows would cost more than a good 1938 Kodak Bantam.<br>

I've made one bellows, for a No. 1 Kodak Special, because it had to fold super-thin. But making one as small as a Bantam would be very demanding.</p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>I got a new bellows (for a Kershaw Raven) from custombellows.co.uk a few years ago (I'm not connected with the company, etc.). They just make you a new bellows; you'll have to fit it.<br>

Making your own bellows is quite well-covered on the web: just do a search for 'making bellows', and be careful you don't make the one for an Irish bagpipe.</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>Thomas Tomosy gives extensive bellows making instructions in his book on Restoring Classic and Collectible Cameras, which you might find in your library system.</p>

[donald_miller5]

Thanks, food for thought. Just a question of if and when I would need them. Right now I can fix the pin hole with liquid electric

tape. Also have a large format Kodak with bellows that I have to evaluate. I would like to test run the Bantam but again

the amount of work or cost involved just makes me wonder. I am not sure if those bagpipes are considered a classic.

[donald_miller5]

Just went back and did so more googleing on the subject. I came across one site which stated a Donald Miller has come

up with some unconventional ideas regarding this. Please do not entertain the idea that this posting is referring to me. It

would be flattering definitely but not the same person. I once before about 10 years exchanged an email with someone

but never advanced any ideas, speculations or anything else. I don' t think anyone will even see this site (or even care)

but I was just surprised to see something like this right after asking the question and do not want to anyone else to

speculate it is me . It surely is another Donald Miller.

[JDMvW]

<p>All I know of is to either belly up to the bar and pay for the film that is still available, or to get adequate backing paper and spools and roll perforated 35mm film on the spool. Remember that 828 was partly designed for people who didn't take many pictures, so I'm not sure how much of a 20-exp. 35mm film you can crowd onto the 828 spool.</p>

<p>for instructions see http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/Kodak828.htm and other sites that show up under 'respooling 35mm film on 828' I see your reference to "unconventional donald miller" shows you've found that site.....</p>

[donald_miller5]

You. do not think it would be practical to cut down cut down the 120 film? It seems it would cut down on the time in a dark

room "environment" with less manipulation? Also would offer alternatives B&W offered commercially and less expensive.

Also remulling my statement above. Maybe that was me he was referring to. I was having issues with the passing of my

son and first wife and the massacre at Va Tech at the time where I live. That is when I kind of lost interest in this hobby.

Anyway if it was, I only speculated on a kernel of an idea that he expanded on. I sent an email to the fellow asking him.

 

It just seems so expensive for 8 exposures when one has a good number of other cameras to use. Do you think that Kodak was targeting the market for those who take a small number of photos or jaws this just a drawback on the path they chose to develope a slightly larger format which was significant at the time? Too bad that some of their innovations were out of step with the rest of community or had issues that serious photographers did not want to deal with.

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>Either making or buying a bellows seems a lot of investment if you only want to use the camera once or twice, and the same applies to the film, I think. Cutting 120 film down to size, or spooling 35 mm with a real 828 paper the first time will take you along a learning curve, which will be a lot of effort per picture if you just make one eight-exposure roll; it might be worth buying a roll. I see Tri-X listed at B&H. Making your own seems more worthwhile the more rolls you want. Do you have spools? <br>

Of course, we don't do this stuff because it's sensible or efficient. I made a little cutter to cut roll film to size for my 127 cameras, and I can adjust it to cut the film 35 mm wide. I originally did that to serve a little Zeiss camera that makes pictures 22x32 mm; almost like half-frame 828, but the spools are different. I cut one roll of 828 for my Coronet Cub Flash: the Cub is made from a resin plastic that is degrading rapidly, and the body is (now) so badly warped that it won't close. I have a better 828 camera (a Bantam Colorsnap), but I wanted to use the Cub before it died.</p>

 

[donald_miller5]

I see your point. The question is why are we looking for In a hobby? Everyone has a different answer and they are all

valid. Is it the picture or taking the picture etc. for me it is taking the picture that I enjoy. I have nothing to do after taking

the picture ( also my photos are unremarkable ). Similarly a lot off the enjoyment would be the time trying to make the

bellows. At the same time using this camera once in a while would be nice. What would I enjoy more? Working on other

cameras and using them or doing this?

 

Also I enjoy just communicating with others and exchanging all kind s of thoughts on the subject. Glad I just found this site

 

Too bad the cub is degrading. Some materials appear so durable for a long time and start to degrade so quickly in a nonlinear fashion that was unforeseen when they were made. The manufacturer probably did not envision that their product would still be around this much later even if it was foreseeable at that time.

[charles_stobbs3]

828 film with a paper backing allows the camera to have a small red window in the back instead of a much

more expensive sprocketed exposure counting system.

[Mike Gammill]

From reading some old Kodak ads from 1950's photo magazines it does appear that 828 was aimed at the more casual (and thrifty) photographer. The Kodak Pony that used 828 was such an example. Kodachrome was even available in 828, although the Pony would have been limited by its slow lens. Some of the emulsions that Kodak produced in unperforated stock were later used for the 126 Kodapak cartridge, although square framelines were exposed on it first.

To the original topic: one way to take a test photo or two without having to respool any film or pay a lot to buy it respooled would be to cut some small pieces of film (35mm, 120, or even sheet film) in total darkness. With the red window covered and a piece of paper between film and back you could put a single sheet and make one shot. Time consuming, but effective. You'd of course have to process in total darkness in a tray. I've test several cameras that way, including an old Polaroid 150. I cut up some outdated 4x5 Plus-X for my tests.

[mfophotos]

<p>I have shot with 828 a few times. I did shoot some Kodachrome 25 in a Pony 828 in 1975..I still have the slides. Then, about 6 years ago, I came into some 828 Verichrome Pan. It worked pretty well.<br /><a href=" title="Burton Tower by Mark O'Brien, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4002/4162601489_a90357dea5_m.jpg" width="145" height="240" alt="Burton Tower"></a><br /> Some cameras may make us want to use them for no other reason than the experience, or because they are too damn cool to be ignored. The Bantam Special would fall into the category of the latter. In my own experience, very few of the cheaper Kodaks are worth the effort. I know some people that were crying over Kodachrome being cancelled before they got a chance to use it, and my stock answer is always "If you are late to the party, don't complain that the beer is gone." <br /> As far as using any Bantam now, most attempts I know of involve using 35mm film and covering over the film window. 35mm is the actual width, but obviously 8 expsoures is not much. It certainly involves less work than slitting 120. The simple folding bantams were not much more than folding box cameras, right up there with a lot of the dreck that Kodak made over so many years.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Well a few posts from Rick D recently presenting .."good looking" cameras. This gets my vote. And as one

poster just said " too damn cool to be ignored" Easier said than done. I have no experience on the matter

but if I had one of those cameras I'd find a way and experiment a bit to find which method is optimal or less

trouble.

[donald_miller5]

Actually the 828 system was developed by Joseph Milihayi for Kodak on the premise that the sprocket holes on 35 mm

film were superfluous and wasted good space. The film was originally for movie applications. The 828 was actually 40mm

X 28mm vs 36mm X 24mm for 135 film. This provided a 30% increase in format size which was significant at that time

and Kodak thought this would be a great advantage along with their market position. At the same time the folding feature

old as it was made the camera a true pocket camera that could fit in the vest pocket quite easily. Where do you draw a

hard line in what you would call a box camera. There are are lot of what we call classic manual cameras on this site that

technologically are not much different. I came across about 1,000 slides from the 40's that my father took with this

camera than I am now scanning. The quality of the image is just great and the color of the Kodachrome is just brilliant

still. I hope to post examples of them when I get a good excuse. In some respects the box camera might be the only true manual camera.

[bgussin]

Here's what I do for my Flash Bantam. I took the backing paper from a 120 roll and slit that to 35-36mm wide. I measured 9 sprocket holes wide and then added a little. I marked a frame number that would show in the "port hole" on the back of the camera. I make the backing paper for 18 exposures. Then in the changing bag I rolled the backing paper along with 35mm film onto the 828 spool. I cut the film near the end of the backing paper. I use a little masking tape to help secure both ends of the film to the backing paper. If I'm shooting b/w I can develop it myself. If I shoot color, I push the fil back into an empty 35mm spool and take it to whosever left developing color film. NOTE: By using backing paper the 35 mm sprocket holes are irrelevant.

 

http://www.photo.net/mobile/forums/mobile-fetch-msg?msg_id=00cz5J

[donald_miller5]

Sounds easy enough and I may try that. Just wondering why not just slice the film to 828 height and make a cut every 9

or 10 holes using some useless 35 mm scrap film and use that? The only problem I can not do my own processing. My

dealer can produce negatives but printing photos is problematic but he can put on cd which loses some clarity. Just now I

thought of, why not pick up a roll of old expired film for relatively low cost and use that or make a template out of it or

reuse it?

[donald_miller5]

<p>Just drove for 8 hours so had time to obsess over what I read here, little artifacts I learned and remembering things I forgot. Came up with a system that might greatly facilitate ease of using 35mm and consistency for 828 film. First why do we have to use film backing paper? I propose using same material that I use for replacing curtain shutters which you can pick up at Michael's etc. The aim of this is to have a reusable system that should be simple and easy to use, durable and can easily be made with almost no hardware with precision. Question is will it make a big difference?<br>

1- cut an appropriate length(to be determined) strip. Robert Gussin says he gets 18 exposures, maybe we can do better. The width will be slightly more than the film (to be determined).<br>

2- a. fold the edges on both sides such that you have a bed exactly the width of the film. Glue these folds down with contact cement (not rubber glue) or if you are real ambitious and know a good seamstress have them sewn. b. Or cut a very very thin strip of 35mm film and glue to each side to make a bed exactly the width of the film.<br>

Now you have a nice medium that you can lay film down on in a dark room blindfolded and it will be the perfect length you want cut your film.<br>

Dressing the ends. I thought of many ways to do this. -cement a crimp clamp (sorry I really do not know what to call it) at or near each end to anchor the film at each end. this is to help make the film more manageable the while respooling. This might be good enough or you may want to have some leading material or secure a small film to the end for threading the spool. -or fashion some material akin to a belt loop near the end and slip the end of the film through and thread the spool with that or with the film and the end of the material. -or fashion a pocket at the end and insert the end of the film in it. Then have some leading end of material or anchor a piece of film for threading the spool.<br>

This would be reusable, durable, and consistent from use to use. Just from tactile senses it should be an easy task in a dark room environment and easy to load a few if you so desire and the film is more likely to stay positioned.<br>

One downside is that I have read that a stiff backing needed to keep the film flat. If that is the case then maybe use a stiffer paper/cardboard material made in a similar fashion. Maybe a super thin sheet of plastic but I think that it would be frustrating to roll up and and after being it wound retain some tendencies to curve more than other materials.<br>

Of course you would calibrate and mark when to stop winding and what photo number. Remove the film in a dark room environment, put in an appropriate container and tell your processor that the film is naked. They should be able to accommodate this. If anyone has any input vis a vis if this is to much initial effort or can not work or any other input that would be great because I am certainly going to try it since my employer closed his doors recently and I have plenty of spare time. </p>