Need help idendifying camera 1955-56

[Tchapman]

Hello

 

Hello  I am trying to identify what camera was used for these pics of my mom dated 1955-56 era.   I don't think her parents had cameras so this is a mystery who took them, this was 25 miles from the nearest city that would have had film developing.  Not many photos were  taken in this town during this period and farming area, cameras would been low end type.  Any ideas on what these photos were shot on?  The paper has Kodak Velox Paper on the rear

[Bettendorf]

It's one of hundreds and hundreds of square format cameras available at that time.  In 1955 cameras were in every town, city, or wide spot in the road.  You'll never find out.

[tgh]

Impossible to tell much from prints.  If you had the negative you might be able to narrow it down a little.  Some models had distinctive edge patterns. Only thing from the prints is, given the perspective, unless the photographer was really tall or standing on a box, the camera was probably an eye level model rather than a waist level viewing type.

[Tchapman]

Thanks for the suggestions.  That is interesting to consider the height perspective of the shot as far as the camera type and the height of the person taking the pic. 

[kmac]

The focusing might be another clue as to the type of camera. Slightly expanding the image on my desktop and using a magnifying glass, I can't see any detail in the cat, and the lady has blurred edges, the car is also a bit blurred, in fact, all the edges in that first image are fuzzy. This would indicate possibly a front cell focusing camera with viewfinder only, and maybe not a rangefinder model. The first photo appears to me to be taken with the focus set at somewhere around 40ft-50ft instead of 10ft-15ft - a common neglect when using viewfinder cameras.

The second image is sharper, so I'd say the user thought about getting the focus right, or the user was standing back a bit further with the camera set to the same focus distance as the first image.

We can rule out twin lens reflex and rangefinder cameras, and pin it down to a fairly cheap 6x6 front cell focusing viewfinder camera. But there's plenty of those in lots of different brands to choose from. You might get a vital clue one day from a family member who perhaps can't name the camera, but can describe it's shape etc. I've been lucky that way, an older sibling described a camera my Dad had in the 50s, and he remembered the brand name even.

Additionally, there is the possibility that the camera was "fixed focus" (like a box camera), and sharpness would vary in a range of images taken at varying distances, but I don't know of any 6x6 fixed focus cameras.

Edited January 14, 2023 by kmac

[Tchapman]

Good info Kmac!  I am uploading the originals, and yes the face is very blurry.  I looked at a sunlight - shadow site for this area, the car photo was about 8am during the summer based on the shadows. I added the tractor photo from a mile away location, more like 1948-52 range.  It has been cut but was originally the same print size as the car image.  Tractor image definitely looks like it was taking by an adult at face level.  My mom's parents did not own a camera, that's confirmed,  it had to have been a friend of her parents.  That's what I'm trying to track down to see if they had negatives or other images of her as well.  It would have required 25 mile drive 1 way to take to the developer to drop off, then another trip to pick up which was a big deal. 

[tgh]

"but I don't know of any 6x6 fixed focus cameras. "  Herco Imperial and Beacon 225 are two that come to mind and both would have been available in 1955.  If you ever have a chance to see the negatives their orientation on the film would help narrow possibilities down.  Some cameras, like the Herco, spooled film through the camera vertically.  Others, like the Beacon, spooled film horizontally.  If the film was 6x6, I'd suspect it's not a Kodak.  I don't think they had any 6x6 eye level viewing cameras that would have been available in 1955.  I believe all their 6x6 box cameras at that time were waist level viewing, and their eye level viewing box cameras at that time were 6x9.  If the film was 127 and enlarged for these prints, there may have been some eye level viewing 4x4 Kodak cameras in 1955.

[kmac]

8 hours ago, tgh said:

Herco Imperial and Beacon 225

They are possibilities.

It does seems that the camera was a low priced square format snapshot front cell focusing folder or a fixed focus box camera. I can't get any closer than that, there's just too many cameras to know which one it might have been.

All you can do is quizz your neighbors if they know who took the photos all those years ago. I'd start at the tractor place. Are all the young ladies still with us ? can you ask any of them ?

Then there are the reasons for taking the photos, knowing the reason often helps in researching and tracking the user and camera down. The two young ladies in the second image look like they were bridesmaids, and were either going to a wedding, or just arrived back home.

I enhanced the photo of your mom by sharpening it and increasing the contrast. It looks a little better ... the creasing damage could be cloned out in PhotoShop, and the missing corner could be cloned in using the ground around your mom and the cat ... which would restore the photo to a more viewable condition.

Edited January 15, 2023 by kmac

[dave_thomas8]

The Kodak Brownie "Hawkeye" shot 6x6 and was made in the bazillions from 1949 up until 1961 or so. It was a box camera that sold for less than $10.

Edited January 15, 2023 by dave_thomas8

[Tchapman]

Thanks for all the ideas. No one is living to ask directly.  At this point the only people related to the likely-suspect friends would be grandchildren.  Probably going nowhere with that effort but it's fun trying to understand the story of what was going on back then.  Outside of the yearly school pics, there ONLY exists 6 images of my mom until after graduation.  So the few badly shot photos are a curiosity. 

[rodeo_joe1]

The blur of the 1st and 3rd images is due to camera-shake. So no clue as to the focussing ability of the camera or photographer to be got there. 

(There's a motion-blur correction filter available in PS too, that could improve the definition.) 

I'm pretty sure that direct vision (eye-level) viewfinder bakelite Brownie cameras were available in the mid 1950s. A few wire-frame finder cameras as well, and most TLRs had a sports finder facility. 

Beyond that it's pure guesswork as to what camera might have been used... and why does it even matter? 

[glen_h]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:07 PM, dave_thomas8 said:

The Kodak Brownie "Hawkeye" shot 6x6 and was made in the bazillions from 1949 up until 1961 or so. It was a box camera that sold for less than $10.

The Brownie Hawkeye that I know has a waist level finder.

I presume the comment relates to the point of view being eye level.

[Tchapman]

I have looked at the Brownie Hawkeye,  it has a view finder on the top so you would look down onto the viewfinder.  But for a lady that had maybe never taken any pictures before, is it possible she could have borrowed a Hawkeye and aimed it from eye level and taken the photo without the viewfinder? These photos seem to have some effort to center the subjects so I lean towards someone looking in a viewfinder.   These photos do all seem to be taken from face level.  Camera shake is evident as noted earlier. 

[kmac]

50 minutes ago, Tchapman said:

Camera shake is evident as noted earlier. 

Joe is getting old, he needs glasses ... it's not camera shake in the first image, it's out-of-focus blur.

The third image is actually pretty well focused, note the sharpness of the tractor steering wheel, and the curved edge of the mud guard.

[kmac]

Re: Posted Sunday at 02:08 PM

Now I need glasses, I've just realized I was talking to the wrong poster in the above post, (Sunday 02:08 PM), my apologies to both tgh and Tchapman

Of course the post was meant for Tchapman

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by kmac

[Tchapman]

Ha.  yes the tractor is sharp edges no doubt, I'm speaking more about the car and cat pic that seems to have left to right shake.

 

 

[dave_thomas8]

On 1/17/2023 at 7:44 PM, glen_h said:

The Brownie Hawkeye that I know has a waist level finder.

I presume the comment relates to the point of view being eye level.

You raise a valid point, I only had (and still have) a Brownie Target which was an earlier 6x9 sort of beastie. But those finders aren't exactly what I think of as waist level, there's no ground glass as in SLRs and TLRs. So I would expect people would hold them at mid-chest level or so. (Of course, being a square format, one could roll the camera 90º left or right and look from the side at eye level! Admittedly that's highly unlikely. 🙃)

[glen_h]

3 hours ago, dave_thomas8 said:

You raise a valid point, I only had (and still have) a Brownie Target which was an earlier 6x9 sort of beastie. But those finders aren't exactly what I think of as waist level, there's no ground glass as in SLRs and TLRs. So I would expect people would hold them at mid-chest level or so. (Of course, being a square format, one could roll the camera 90º left or right and look from the side at eye level! Admittedly that's highly unlikely. 🙃)

I have ones like that, and even though I know how to use them, I don't know how to explain it.

The Hawkeye has a larger window, but maybe works the same way.

A few years ago, I had out a Brownie 2 model F, which uses 120 film.  (Though I have some VP116 film.)

I had a roll of VPL120, which is a tungsten balanced C41 film, suspecting that no-one used it in that model before.

 

It seems that the Target comes in 620 and 616 versions.

 

[rodeo_joe1]

20 hours ago, kmac said:

Joe is getting old, he needs glasses ... it's not camera shake in the first image, it's out-of-focus blur.

That's true, I am old and I do need new specs, but I can still tell camera shake from out-of-focus blur! 

The first shot exhibits both focus blur and camera shake! Look at the chrome trim of the car window - it appears thinner and more defined in the vertical strips than in the horizontal parts. Showing that the camera was jabbed downward as the shutter was pressed. 

And the tractor shot is definitely sharper in the vertical axis than it is horizontally. 

And now that I look closer at the small shot of the two girls in white frocks, there's some diagonal blur there too. 

So presumably all taken by a fairly inexperienced photographer. 

P. S. I've just tried the camera-shake 'correction' filter in PS 2022 version. It's not very good I'm afraid, but does get a bit more definition into the image. It supposedly uses AI, so you get no say in the direction in which sharpening is applied. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by rodeo_joe1