hunter_compton

I was waiting to see if anyone would mention the Medalist. It's an excellent 6x9 camera with a superb lens. Yes, It does take 620 film which come people like to fuss about, but it's really not that hard if you have at least 2 620 spools. There's a lot of emphasis people put on getting a Medalist II over the original model, although in my eyes they are equally capable if you don't plan on using flash. This is of course a moot point if you have a synchronizer and like flash bulbs. I suggest reading Mike Eckman's review as well if interested: https://www.mikeeckman.com/2015/12/kodak-medalist-1944/ Here's one of my favorite shots from my Medalist:

The No.2 Brownie model F is the only version that has an aluminum body. The previous model E introduced a metal film carrier, but the body was still card and all previous models had card bodies with wooden film carriers. I would tend to occur that Tmax 100 is not a suitable replacement for Verichrome Pan. I am not a fan of Tmax 100 or 400 in general, but find that it lacks that exceptional dynamic range that made Verichrome Pan such a suitable film for simple cameras.

The ability to handle under a red safelight before and after exposure.

The first image was a snapshot using the largest stop on the Brownie. The viewfinders on the Brownie are small and dim, and I did not consider the change in perspective from holding the camera at waist level, as I had intended to include the hill trailing down towards the frozen lake. This is not the first time the finders would impact a photo on this roll. Image #2, the Frozen Lake, Again a snapshot using the largest stop. Image #3, Students and Clocktower, Again, a snapshot with the largest stop. Interestingly, this image was shot in better light than the rest yet I seem to notice more grain in the sky. Image #4, House on Frozen Lake, Probably my favorite image from the roll, I thought it would be too underexposed when shooting, but i took a snapshot using the longest stop and hoped for the best. I was not disappointed. Image #5, This image was basically a failure in my mind, as seen from atop the bridge this log looked really cool frozen in ice. But being in the shadow of the bridge, the light was poor. So I braced the camera against one of the bridge supports, used the second largest aperture and tried for about a 1/2 second exposure. The result was not great, some camera shake is visible and the reflected light on the ice mostly obscured the subject. Image #6, Railroad Bridge, This was a time exposure using the smallest aperture, the camera was perched on a log and the shutter was opened for about 2 seconds. I am quite pleased with how well the film recorded detail in the shadows under the bridge, as I thought it would appear as mostly black. Image #7, Stadium, Snapshot, largest stop. Again, the viewfinder bit me here. Image #8, Trail, Snapshot, largest stop. Camera braced against bench. Overall, I am quite pleased with this film. I reiterate my earlier statements, and I am also pleased by the contrasty nature of this film as well as its representation of open shadows. My No.2 Brownie Model F also performed well, no light leaks this time around. My largest criticism of the film is that I found it had a strong desire to curl in on itself after drying, best I can find this film is on an acetate base as most films are, but this is on a 5 mil base where other films are on 3.9 to 4 mil bases, such as Tri-X. I do not know if this factor is affecting the tendency of the film to curl. I am also happy that film makers like Ilford continue to bring new products to market, particularly like in this case when that new product actually mimics something old. I have a few continued plans for this film. I am going to roll some to make some 117 film for a 1900 Brownie, and if I can get my hands on an unused roll of Eastman Autographic film, I may experiment with recreating the Autographic feature on old Kodaks.

Ilford announced last month that they would be releasing their Ortho Plus film in 35MM and 120 sizes. Ortho Plus was previously only available in sheet film sizes, and its release in roll film sizes makes it one of the few pictorial contrast orthochromatic films in production. I was pleasantly surprised to find Ilford releasing such a product, as I am someone who has a number of early box and folding cameras from the early 1900s that I enjoy shooting. I believe that having an orthochromatic film with a speed quite similar to films that would have been in use when these cameras were new is advantageous for a number of reasons. Firstly, if their were any concern that light leakage from the red window would fog the film, the use of orthochromatic film would eliminate such fear assuming the red window was present and undamaged. Secondly, lenses made prior to the widespread adoption of panchromatic negative material may not have been perfectly corrected for chromatic aberration in the red spectrum, as this was unnecessary. The use of orthochromatic film would negate this disadvantage. Third, the higher contrast nature of orthochromatic film (Ortho Plus was originally designed for copy work) compensates for the low contrast of early lenses. Fourth, having a film with a similar speed to those in use means that you can use the original exposure directions for simple cameras which lack clearly defined aperture or shutter speed indications. Finally, orthochromatic films can be processed under a red safelight, which may be easier for newcomers to film development as it means the film reels can be loaded in lit conditions, or even tray development can be done resulting in a lower initial cost to entry. Processing by inspection is also possible if so desired. Basically, I think that using Ilford Ortho Plus gives one the best representation of what it would have been to use a camera from about 1900-1950 as originally intended. Thus, if someone approached you and said "I found Grandma's old Box Brownie in the attic, what film do you recommend if I wanted to shoot it?" this would be what I would recommend. Now, the No.2 Brownie has to be one of the most prolific cameras ever made. If you're reading this you have probably owned one or came across one at a garage sale, antique shop, Goodwill, etc. I have owned a No.2 model D for a number of years, but the cardboard case of that camera was so warped that I had no inclination that it would be light tight, and yet I wanted to shoot with this camera. Fortunately, I was able to pick up two more at the recent MIPHS swap meet, for $5 each. I recently shot with the No.2 Model E, and found that it too had some light leak problems, but posted one of the good images I got off the roll in this week's Film Camera Week thread. When Ortho Plus 120 came onto retailers' shelves, I grabbed a couple of rolls and decided to shoot one of them in this No.2 Brownie model F. Since this film can be processed under a red safelight, I decided to develop it by the see-saw tray method rather than use a tank. I developed it in HC-110 Dil. B (1:31) at 68F for 6 minutes. I was quite pleased with the results I got with this method, I did not notice any of the scratches on the emulsion that I feared might occur. I can see why tray development was popular as an entry into film development, although it is a bit more physical experience than tank development and demands your attention.

Snow came early to SE Michigan, and I was out shooting with a recently acquired No.2 Brownie model E this past Monday. I used Tri-X which may have been a mistake given the problems I had with light leaks, however it was appropriate for the given amount of light. I was happy to have pulled this exposure off the roll, as it turned out quite well without any noticeable light leakage.

Still experimenting what the Kodak Bantam Special is capable of. Can say that I am very impressed with the sharpness of the lens, even wide open. The following photo was taken at f/2.0 1/100th in open shade on a cloudy day. Film was Kodak Colorplus 200, it was also my first time doing C-41 processing at home. Used a Cinestill CS-41 liquid kit, came out well.

Old Rickety Bridge, Vest Pocket Kodak, Verichrome Pan

"The Mug Man at Work" Kodak Medalist I, Tri-X, 3+ Portra Lens, Time exposure, probably about 10 sec at F/16

Kodak Bantam Special, 1992 exp Plus-X Pan, 1/100 f/5.6

Films of the era were slow, Kodak Non-Curling or Verichrome would have been in the 25-50 ASA range. If your camera has a Hawk-Eye or Ball Bearing shutter the speed of it will likely range around 1/30th-1/50th of a second. It should have stops marked 1-4, 1=f/11. 2=f/16, 3=f/22, 4=f/32. Stick a 100 ISO film in it and shoot with stops 3 or 4 on a bright sunny day and open it up a bit in shade or clouds. In heavy overcast conditions, the use of a 400 ISO film may be preferable. Do check the integrity of the bellows as Kodak bellows from this era are well known for developing light leaks and pinholes in the corners. For the red window, a piece of red tinted plastic will replace the celluloid window there originally. Something like a gel filter or even a red tab from a set of file folders will work.

Kodak Retina I type 010, Tri-X 400

Thanks

This is a process that I have always wanted to try, however I do have a question. If performing this process, you do include the filter factor in making your exposure, right? I assumed this would be the case since you want a correctly exposed negative, however while reading up on the subject I found one source saying that you should not correct for the light loss through the filter, and I could not find anything to counter this.

I was eventually able to get the shutter in my Perfex 55 figured out, Rick Olsen's notes were especially helpful although he does not specifically cover the quick way to align the gear train. Thus, just in case anyone comes across this thread with the same question I did, I want to post my explanation about how to get the shutter gearing mechanism set up. The first thing is that the shaft on which the film advance sprockets operate has three gears on the top plate of the shutter. The top of these 3 gears moves independently of the rest of the shaft, however its travel is limited to 270 degrees or so, with the purpose of providing an over-travel stop for the shutter speed dial. The first thing that must be done is to unsure that the shutter is not cocked, then make sure that this gear is turned as fully counter clockwise as is possible. We are currently setting up the camera in B mode. Now, the shutter speed shaft has two gears on it. The bottom of the shaft has a cam on it with an outward protrusion. The left edge of this protrusion (as viewed from the front of the shutter with the protrusion facing you) must push down on the shaft that rises out of the slow speed assembly. If it is assembled with the bottom gear rotated too far clockwise the protrusion will be too far to the left and the slow speeds can be engaged on settings other than B. If the bottom gear is rotated too far counter clockwise, the slow speed functions will not engage at all (what my camera was doing when I received it). Finally, the two gears on the speed selector shaft have two interfacing pins. The bottom gear has a pin facing up and the top gear has a pin facing down. The bottom pin must be to the right of the top pin and top pin to the left of the right pin. The gears must also be meshed so that two pins are as close together as possible to fully wind the shutter, otherwise the shutter may not wind fully when the top speeds are selected and the camera will fail to make an exposure on these speeds.

Kodak Medalist I, Portra 160, 1/400 f/5.6, Slight light leak in lower left was likely due to re-rolling not tight enough.

Hi Rick, Don't know if you would still be reading this but if you are I would like your input. I also have a Perfex Fifty Five, and the shutter doesn't seem to be tensioning fully using the film advance knob. I already have the shutter out of the body but would be interested in any suggestions you may have as to correct orientation and alignment of the gear arrangement on the top of the shutter box.

Actually, I have found the current generation of Polaroid Originals films to be surprisingly colorfast despite the other issues. I haven't noticed any appreciable shifts or fading in images I took about a year ago. That said, I don't store my Polaroids in a windowsill, so they aren't being exposed to direct sunlight on a daily basis.

That's not scratching, its a failure of the opaque opacification layer inside the film that blocks the light when the film first exits the camera and is developing. I have noticed this as well on even the most recent generations of the Polaroid Originals SX-70 films. It seems to get worse as the film ages, the longer you have the film in the camera and the brighter conditions you are shooting in the more likely this is to happen. I have great respect for the Polaroid Originals/ Impossible Project for re-manufacturing film for these old cameras however they just don't seem to be there yet, as to be useful for anything other than experimental use. Another problem I have been having is that the batteries in the packs are wearing out prematurely, If I leave a pack in a camera for more than a month it may not have enough energy left to get though all 8 exposures. This is a bit disconcerting considering that the batteries are of a lithium manganese dioxide chemistry, and should theoretically have sufficient energy density and a 10 year shelf life, but I have cross referenced the part numbers in my Polaroid Originals packs and found they use the cheapest Chinese cells possible, so it should come as no surprise. It would be nice if someone could manufacture those Polapulse flat batteries again, then these issues would be less likely and you could actually fit 10 exposures in a pack again. I think that if Polaroid Originals/Impossible would work on actually fixing the opacification and battery issues and create a technologically better product, versus their current model of focusing on tinted emulsions and colored frames, their business would be better in the long run.

I happened to have a junk model 800 lying around, so I made a short video that describes and shows the function of this shutter:

I have never been inside one of these Polaroid shutters, such as those found on the 95, 150, 700 and 800. However, I can definitely say that none of the roll-film Polaroid cameras have any type of interlock that prevents the shutter from functioning whether or not film is in the camera. The model 800 is a fully manual camera, no electronics.

Is anyone able to inform me of the procedure or direct me towards a document that outlines the methods to adjust the rangefinder on the Kodak Bantam Special? I have one that is out of adjustment. I was able to ascertain how the adjustment is done to get the upper and lower halves splitting the image equally. However, I still have the problem of the lower field being rotationally out of alignment with the top field, as well as not actually lining up at the correct distance. Any help would be appreciated.

I recall the process for aligning the rangefinder on my Medalist I. You are going to need a piece of ground glass to go in the film plane with a cutout in the corner to access the rangefinder cam adjustment screw which is in the upper right interior of the camera. The camera was set up at 15 feet with a easily focus-able flat object in the viewfinder at this distance. The focus is adjusted on the helical until the image is then in focus on the ground glass. Then, this screw is adjusted until the top and bottom images converge in the rangefinder. The final part was to align the distance scale to be accurate, which on the Medalist I requires turning it about 450 degrees to put some spring tension on the coil spring that powers the dial and then to replace the viewfinder assembly. One of the changes on the Medalist II was that the distance scale does not come off with the viewfinder assembly, so you may need to consult the manual for that specific procedure.

I bought a Kodak Pony 828 camera this past weekend, and inside of it was a roll of exposed Verichrome Pan 828 film. I developed it today for six minutes in Kodak HC-110 dil. B. with two inversions every 30 seconds. The first three frames were visibly exposed on the roll of eight, so it looks like somebody took a couple of photos and then forgot about the camera and the roll got would to the end. The backing paper lists an ASA of 125, so this film has to date from between 1964 when Kodak removed the double safety factor from their films and when 828 film was discontinued in 1985. I would hazard a guess that the film was shot sometime in the late 60s or 70s based on the age of the camera and what looks to be part of VW bus visible behind the heating oil tank in the third photo. All three photos turned out to be of dogs. I don't scan negatives much, so I could probably get better results with more practice, but these results seemed ok for web posting.

That prism is visible in the diagram below the center red star and above the screw marked "Guard Screw". It was originally glued to the plate which can be loosened and adjusted to align the rangefinder. It would be oriented 180 degrees from the way you have it in your first picture, and I do believe that you have it right side up since glue should be visible on the bottom of the prism which was mounted to the plate. Elmer's white glue would work fine for this, JB weld or similar epoxy if you're patient. Avoid Super or other cyanoacrylate based adhesives as they will fog optical surfaces.