heqm

<p>Paul,<br> Foma currently makes a black-and-white slide film, Fomapan R, though it has quite normal contrast. I've shot two rolls of it in the past few months. The only place I've found that can develop it is dr5Chrome in Colorado. They can also turn B&W negative emulsions into positive transparencies, though I've not tried that personally.<br> I suppose that whatever process they use could have been used for the high-contrast emulsions of years ago, like Kodak Tech Pan, but again I have no direct experience.</p>

<p>I've used it for several projects as well as just taking pictures. It would be a bit easier to use if the plastic and leather case had not disintegrated long ago, though.</p>

<p>I hadn't realized so many were out there! Anyway, mine is just a bit large and klunky to use, compared (for example) with its successor, an OM-1. The rangefinder needs to be handled carefully; the rewind knob can be hard on the fingers; and not knowing how many shots I have left on the roll adds a certain excitement to a photo expedition. But it can do a good job, and I have no hesitation about using it for just about any 35mm task. For instance, the above shot is a print made (commercially) from Fomapan R, a black-and-white transparency film I was curious about. As is the one below, which shows that even the commercial scanner has trouble with the highlights of this kind of film.</p><div></div>

<p>Unfortunately, a few years after I bought it and near the start of a week-long hike in the wilderness, the shutter broke. For a long time I could not get it fixed; everyone said it was not economical to repair, and wouldn't touch it. (That's a disadvantage of having an older, less-expensive camera.) Finally I found someone who would work on it, and the shutter works now. But some parts are just not available, leaving the rangefinder with a lot of play and the exposure counter only decrements sometimes. About the same time I sent the meter, whose glass had cracked and whose pointer was broken, to Quality Light-Metric in LA for repair and calibration.</p><div></div>

<p>At the same time, I purchased an exposure meter: a Weston Master II, shown below. Although silenium meters have the reputation for being unreliable and simply failing to work after many years, this one's fine. It's calibrated in one-third f-stops, which may be too fine for most work, but it's nice to have the precision if you need it. I also bought a flash unit a few years later (along with a cord to plug into the socket on the front of the body--that's not a hot shoe). I find, though, I almost never use flash, and I'm not sure the flash synch works now.</p><div></div>

<p>It came with an instruction booklet for the Agfa Super Silette Automatic, which had a built-in exposure meter. Both are fairly simple cameras. Below shows the back open, a useful pressure plate to keep the film flat, a standard loading and advancing arrangement. The exposure counter at the bottom of the back counts down. There's a standard tripod socket and sprocket disengage for rewinding. I've never been able to get the film speed reminder, there on top of the rewind knob, to move.</p><div></div>

<p>I now present the camera I've had the longest. After two Instamatics, this was the first 35mm, adjustable camera I owned, bought used for $35, or roughly a quarter of what the lowest-price SLR was going for at the time. The Agfa Super Silette has a nice, big, bright veiwfinder/rangefinder, something I didn't appreciate until I'd used others not so good. The lens is better than one would expect in such an inexpensive, clearly consumer-oriented camera, and at 45mm is just slightly wider than the standard 50mm. Shutter speeds go up to 1/500. I used the bulb setting a lot, trying to get good pictures of stars.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Andrew, </strong>the frame counter has a little diamond at about 39 and again at 23, clearly where you set it for 36- and 20-exposure rolls before winding out the leading frames. Nothing at 27; so either the standard (Kodak) rolls weren't sold in 24-exposure rolls, or maybe there was a line in the owner's manual telling you what to do. You can pull out the 37th frame, if you want to, by shifting the dial manually.<br> On the rewind knob there's a film reminder setting, listing Plus X, Pan X, Super XX, Kodachrome A, Kodachrome Daylight, and Infrared. The camera has outlived all of them, of course, though Plus X lasted until a short time ago. I find it interesting that Infrared was apparently popular enough to make it worth putting on the camera.<br> On one of my other cameras, I developed the habit of giving the winding lever an extra push just to make sure it had wound a full frame; it wouldn't move if the film had gone far enough. On the Retina, however, there is no lock when you've gone far enough, so if I forget I lose an exposure.<br> This model has a flash synch (M or X), which I've never used.</p>

<p>Here's a better example of what the Retina can do: Scott Circle, in Washington DC.</p><div></div>

<p>Again this was a hasty scan, showing lots of dust on the negative. But you can see the potential in the camera.<br> If I find another Duo-six-twenty in good shape, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. Below, another view of the cathedral.</p><div></div>

<p>The blurriness above is almost certainly due to camera shake with a slower shutter speed.<br> Unfortunately, I don't have a picture of the second camera, my father's Kodak Duo Six-Twenty; stupidly I let it get away from me some years ago. It looks similar to the Retina in body shape, also a collapsable folder, and not much larger. But as its name implies it takes 620 film: medium format in a camera smaller than most 35mm! The "duo" in the title must refer to the fact that it has two red windows for checking the film winding; you put the number in each in turn, getting 16 pictures on a roll. <br> The small size means you can take it almost anywhere, for instance on a visit to Palermo (below), and still get nice big negatives.</p><div></div>

<p>I admit I only got interested in this one through comments by Karen Nakamura on her website (http://photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index.html): she was amazed at the idea of a <em>high-quality</em> Kodak. And it is: quite a decent lens, mechanically neat and well-functioning. It is also small, even for a 35mm, and inconspicuous, with a quiet shutter. There are two quirks to watch out for: the focus must be set at infinity in order the close the camera up, and when the exposure counter (which counts down) reaches the last one, it locks the shutter.<br> The picture below (a hasty scan of the print) was taken of co-workers just before a meeting. The f/3.5 lens with fast film can clearly handle well-lit interiors, and I managed to guess right on the distance. The shutter speeds go up to 1/500, and for that you can feel the engagement of a stronger spring as you go past 1/250.</p> <div></div>

<p>For the third installment of "Pictures with old cameras" I present two scale-focusing Kodaks. Both have the full range of f-stop and shutter speed adjustments, in contrast with the bellows Kodaks of the last thread (with a few choices) and the boxes of the first (with none at all). This, along with the much better lenses, means far more flexibility and picture quality. The biggest remaining difficulty about them is the lack of any kind of focusing aid. You have to estimate the distance to your subject and set it on the scale. Below, the first of the pair, a Retina Ia.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a scan of one frame from a contact sheet. The No. 2A definitely has a panoramic format.</p><div></div>

<p>It's a real shame, because the rest of the camera is still in good shape. As I pulled the Autographic out for the family portrait a couple of weeks ago, it seemed even more of a shame. I've asked Turner Bellows, up in Rochester, for a quote on a remanufactured bellows. Of course Kodak cameras were not really made for major repairs; the front plate is riveted together, not screwed, for instance. But it might be worthwhile.<br> Now I had several rolls of 116 film sitting on the shelf staring at me. I finally broke down and bought the other folder, a No. 2A Folding Autographic Brownie (maybe similar to the one Glen Herrmannsfeldt mentioned in the other thread). Its bellows are fine; but it has no viewfinder, only one shutter speed works, the focus fitting (to keep it in place) is missing, and one of the film rollers is gone (so the film gets scratched). I did get several pictures from it, but they won't fit in my film scanner. I have no plans to do more 116 photography.</p>

<p>This is the Achilles' Heel of folders: the bellows. Leather deteriorates with time, leading to light leaks. This is the only recognizable frame on the roll. And as I tried to fix the leaks with liquid tape, they only got worse.</p><div></div>

<p>At the time I acquired the Autographic (which still has the autographic stylus!) I was working away from home, without my references and bits and pieces. I did some research on the net, found that it should take 116 film, and ordered some from Film for Classics (I think they re-roll 70mm cinema film). Only to find it didn't fit! This camera takes 120, which makes things a lot easier. I set out to run some film through the machine, with results below.</p><div></div>

<p>On the right, the first one I acquired: a No. 1 Kodak Jr. Autographic. It was given to me by a friend because I still used film cameras and therefore might do something with this hand-me-down from a great-aunt. We now have choices: two shutter speeds, 1/50 and 1/25 (plus T and B); four lens openings, 1 through 4 (which I measure roughly as f/13, 17, 24 and 40); and three focus settings, 8, 25 and 100 feet. And they all work! What impressed me most at the time (I was shooting mainly 35mm in the fall of 2010) was the size of the negative, 6x9cm. That's a lot of real estate. But we can't assume that it immediately translates to huge enlargements: the lens is a single meniscus. Also, the focal length is about 120mm; by a rule of thumb from my old days, that means any hand-held photos should be done at 1/120 second or faster--which is not available. Of course, the original reason for such a large negative was to have reasonably-sized pictures without enlarging.</p>

<p>. . . as they fight in the primaeval swamps? No, the second installment in the "Pictures with old cameras" series: two Kodak folders.</p><div></div>

<p>Motivated by Allan Cobb's story of an 11x14 print from one of this kind of camera, I went back to a recent roll (developed this morning) and scanned two frames. The one below, a larger-size version of which I'll try to upload to my portfolio here at photo.net, looks like it could handle even a decent-sized enlargement. On the other hand, the next frame is worryingly soft. There are too many variables (my primitive scanning, how steady I held the camera) to trace causes, but it seems the Hawkeye can do better than I thought.</p><div></div>

<p>I have shot 400 film in daylight, and it does turn out dense, but it's usable. The best niche I've found for the Brownie Hawkeye is going out during a snowstorm. You wouldn't want to do that with your best shooter, unless you had it protected somehow; but the BH is plastic and it won't hurt to get it a bit wet (and even if it did get a bit damaged, it's not a huge investment lost). Also, the batteries don't wimp out in the cold, and the automatic exposure won't keep trying to make white snow a medium gray.</p><div></div>

<p>Donald, at some point going to smaller apertures is going to run into diffraction effects. I'm not sure exactly when, and it's not a hard line anyway, but going beyond something like f/22 to f/32 you're certainly risking it. Also: the location of the aperture stop is important in the lens design, even when it's a simple meniscus, so it would be best if you could put the smaller aperture in the same place (which may not be feasible). I'd be interested in your results. Personally, I find that the greater speed and choices of speed in film today give the boxes a lot of flexibility, much more than when they were new.<br> That said, there are inconveniences in using these. The viewfinder takes practice to use, and may not be bright enough if you're standing in sunlight and taking a picture of something dark. I suspect the Argus viewfinder, while much easier to use, doesn't show the full film frame. The take-up spool in the Brownie Junior is held in place by tabs around the outside, not by something sticking in the end, and so doesn't always wind tightly; it's inconvenient to have to unload in a changing bag and wind the film again!</p>

<p>A project I have in mind is to take one of these around my neighborhood and snap away as if I'd just received my first camera, a naive look at everything. You might have your own ideas.</p>

<p>The Argus has a better lens than the other two, though I get uneasy with 10x10" prints.</p><div></div>