Filmwasters
Which Board? => Main Forum => : Indofunk August 13, 2016, 11:59:00 PM
-
This wonderful camera showed up at my doorstep this morning, in really good condition and (surprising to me) with a perfectly functioning shutter. Problem is, I don't remember buying it. I'm not really one for drunk purchases, so I'm thinking I bought it for someone. Like Peter, who often asks me to buy stuff for him on eBay because he's been banned from ebay or paypal or something. But I didn't buy it for him. Did I buy it for anyone else here?
(http://konakkol.com/images/other/20160813_185324.jpg)
Interestingly, my ebay, paypal, and bank account show no record of this purchase ??? It came from a Goodwill shop in Indiana.
-
Also, the shipping label included my last name, which nobody knows, so ... I must have bought it on a credit card? And none of my relatives (who DO know my last name) would have enough knowledge to get me such an awesome camera. Even my Dad only knows about Polaroids.
-
My birthday is less than 2 months away. Now the surprise is ruined, but it's the thought that counts. Thanks so much Satish! ;D
-
LOL
-
Don't you just love times like this! :)
-
Multiple personalities? Pretty cool if you've got two that are into film photography, and that maintain their own credit.
-
Funny mystery! :D
-
Mystery solved! :D Turns out it's from a musician friend of mine who now lives in NOLA. Doesn't know a damn whit about cameras as far as I am aware, but he's a bit of an ebay shark and told me he "got a great deal on it". Pretty impressive that a great ebay deal arrived with the shutter and aperture blades working perfectly :o
Now that was a great surprise! :D
-
:-[
-
Mystery solved! :D Turns out it's from a musician friend of mine who now lives in NOLA. Doesn't know a damn whit about cameras as far as I am aware, but he's a bit of an ebay shark and told me he "got a great deal on it". Pretty impressive that a great ebay deal arrived with the shutter and aperture blades working perfectly :o
Now that was a great surprise! :D
That shutter is as simple as a hammer. I can only imagine on ceasing to function if it were full of mud or had been thrown in a volcano.
My No.2 has the Rapid Rectilinear lens, but is otherwise the same. Photos aren't half bad if you stop all the way down.
-
Mystery solved! :D Turns out it's from a musician friend of mine who now lives in NOLA. Doesn't know a damn whit about cameras as far as I am aware, but he's a bit of an ebay shark and told me he "got a great deal on it". Pretty impressive that a great ebay deal arrived with the shutter and aperture blades working perfectly :o
Now that was a great surprise! :D
That shutter is as simple as a hammer. I can only imagine on ceasing to function if it were full of mud or had been thrown in a volcano.
My No.2 has the Rapid Rectilinear lens, but is otherwise the same. Photos aren't half bad if you stop all the way down.
You mean to f/64? :o I suppose with fast enough film (like, 400ASA) on a sunny day that would be feasible. And hey! Today happens to be a bright sunny day! ;D
-
It uses the US Aperture system rather than f-stops. It's easy to convert:
4 = f/8
8 = f/11
16 = f/16
32 = f22
64 = f-32.
I have the same camera:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60348236@N07/8126671870/in/album-72157631861621266/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/60348236@N07/8126671870/in/album-72157631861621266/)
-
Mine says "1 2 3 4"
(http://konakkol.com/images/other/20160814_153615.jpg)
According to Camerapedia (http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_No._2_Folding_Autographic_Brownie), this means f/8, f/16, f/32, and f/64. But you may be right, I just have no idea ???
-
Oh, another question for people with this camera ... what size negatives does it produce? The Camerapedia page says 2¼×3¼", which is a very odd size, but the finder window seems to line up with the 6x6cm numbers on the 120 film roll...
-
The camera dates back to somewhere between 1917 and 1926. It takes 120 film and sold for a whopping 12$ at the time!
https://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13.shtml (https://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13.shtml)
And using the US inflation calculator, that would be somewhere between a whopping 163$ and 225$...
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)
If the window is not centered, it should read the 6x9 markings (a lot of cameras used that format back in the day)
-
Ah, ok, I bet it is the 6x9 numbers (I am not too familiar with 120 film :-[ ). So I only get 8 exposures out of a roll of 120? What a gyp :D
-
Yours is a little different than mine. Does it have a lens behind the shutter or is one missing? Mine has both the lens element in front and behind.
-
Oh well check that out. I assume the front element is gone! :o I wonder how that will affect the pictures ;D
-
well... I guess you'll get those mysterious pictures with this one.
But the good side is that you an use an ugly camera with a non-functionning shutter that you get for dirt cheap and just replace the lens.
-
Is it gone or is it just a simple meniscus lens behind the shutter. They did have that configuration on box cameras. The ring where the front lens would be on yours looks different than mine.
-
More than likely it's a meniscus lens behind the shutter blades. There's no place for a front element to screw in.
-
On many cameras the rear element swings in and out with a lever to compensate for close focus... Well, at least portrait focus.
-
More than likely it's a meniscus lens behind the shutter blades. There's no place for a front element to screw in.
Au contraire, the front ring does unscrew, so I'm assuming there used to be a lens in there. Otherwise why would they even have that ring there?
I was going to go the Francois route, but all the Brownies on ebay are at least $40, not worth it just for a lens ;D Maybe I'll just finish shooting this roll and see how it comes out...
-
That's the same shutter as mine and the front lens element unscrews from the shutter. The difference with yours is that it looks like there is no way to mount a lens inside that piece because there are no threads on the inside of it. I suspect it's a lower cost version of the same camera. If you look on eBay there are other ones without the front lens element just like yours.
On many cameras the rear element swings in and out with a lever to compensate for close focus... Well, at least portrait focus.
The only focus on this camera is the 3 notches on the scale next to the lens.
-
Yep, what Bryan said. There were two lens options - the Achromat and the Rapid Rectilinear. You have the former; that front piece is a hood/thread protector/let's make this look less cheap part. They weren't about to mill two separate shutter housings just to facilitate lens options.
I wouldn't worry much about it, though - I have the "better" lens option, and as I said, it's really only sharp at f/32, and barely acceptable for general work at f/16. Might be good for portraits, though.
-
Yep, what Bryan said. There were two lens options - the Achromat and the Rapid Rectilinear. You have the former; that front piece is a hood/thread protector/let's make this look less cheap part. They weren't about to mill two separate shutter housings just to facilitate lens options.
I wouldn't worry much about it, though - I have the "better" lens option, and as I said, it's really only sharp at f/32, and barely acceptable for general work at f/16. Might be good for portraits, though.
Ah, ok. Good to know. Thank Henry Ford for assembly line production! ;D
Ok, yet another in my series of questions ... this time about the focus. I see the 3 settings (VERY close to each other, so a tiny slip of the hand can throw it out of focus :o ), and also a screw with which it looks like you can adjust/calibrate it. The entire plate on mine looks like it's in a very different position than all the ones I've seen online. Does this mean that my focus is out of calibration? How the hell does one calibrate this? Other than blowing through multiple trial-and-error rolls? :o
-
I don't know anything about calibrating it, the only problem mine has is the lens no longer sits parallel to the film plane. It must have been bent back at some point. When I was shooting with it I would push it forward a bit on top to get it positioned better. I wouldn't stress out on focus too much with that camera, no matter what you do it won't be sharp. it may be in a different position than others because it has a different lens. With the lens positioned behind the shutter it may have a different focal length.
-
Yep, what Bryan said. There were two lens options - the Achromat and the Rapid Rectilinear. You have the former; that front piece is a hood/thread protector/let's make this look less cheap part. They weren't about to mill two separate shutter housings just to facilitate lens options.
I wouldn't worry much about it, though - I have the "better" lens option, and as I said, it's really only sharp at f/32, and barely acceptable for general work at f/16. Might be good for portraits, though.
Ah, ok. Good to know. Thank Henry Ford for assembly line production! ;D
Ok, yet another in my series of questions ... this time about the focus. I see the 3 settings (VERY close to each other, so a tiny slip of the hand can throw it out of focus :o ), and also a screw with which it looks like you can adjust/calibrate it. The entire plate on mine looks like it's in a very different position than all the ones I've seen online. Does this mean that my focus is out of calibration? How the hell does one calibrate this? Other than blowing through multiple trial-and-error rolls? :o
Lock shutter open. Put a wall of scotch tape across the film gate. Point the camera at something and look at the image on the faux ground glass with a loupe (or, lacking that, and inverted 50mm lens). Check focus at the center (for calibration) and the edges (for squareness of the lens standard to the film plane).
-
You could also reverse colimate the lens the lens by putting a mark on a piece of scotch that you place at the film plane and using a long lens to look at it through the camera's optics.
-
What's the name of this group? "Film Hoarders" or "Judicious Film Users"? NO!!! Go waste some film in the thing and show us what you got!!!!
-
What's the name of this group? "Film Hoarders" or "Judicious Film Users"? NO!!! Go waste some film in the thing and show us what you got!!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ilford XP2 souping now. Also, thanks for the calibration how-to :)
-
Aaaaaand ... negs are way overexposed :o Don't know whether this is due to shutter speed being off or my brain being off. Based on prior experience, I'm going with the latter :) I'll try another roll and underexpose a stop or two and see what happens :)
Also, 6x9 negs are really nice to look at and hold :-* :o
-
Could the shutter be sticking? Might be some dirt in there. I guess Kodak's logic was to put the shutter ahead of the lens and keep the lens clean, but it also means the shutter gets dirty.
-
Since there's no lens in front of it, can I just pshht some Ronsinol into there? That would make it easiest shutter ever to clean :D
-
It's almost that easy to do it right: http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=kodakbb (http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=kodakbb)
-
It's almost that easy to do it right: http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=kodakbb (http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=kodakbb)
Even that is a bit too complicated for me :o As a side note, I'm glad that digital camera technology took off AFTER the internet was invented, because all the film camera repair guides I see (like this one) were obviously written in the 90's. Nobody has written a film repair guide after that ;D
-
Also, as long as there are film cameras to be repaired, people will remember Geocities ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can still access the archives of the Classic Camera Repair Forum. The forum is no longer active but Someone is maintaining the archives. There's a lot of good information in there.
http://rangefinderforum.com/classics/forum/messages/board-topics.html (http://rangefinderforum.com/classics/forum/messages/board-topics.html)
-
Also, as long as there are film cameras to be repaired, people will remember Geocities ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
LOL. True, that.
-
Thanks for the link Bryan. That's a real treasure trove.
-
Also, as long as there are film cameras to be repaired, people will remember Geocities ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
LOL. True, that.
And if you look well, there's a full archive of it on the internet. Only problem is you need a full terabyte to hold it....
-
I have to say, I love the pragmatism of the front standard. "Hmmm... let's see now. It's a 'dull' day out and I'm going to shoot that group of 'average' looking people over there. HA! All set!" Thank you Kodak for catering to the 'literate, but not too smart' photographer. Where would I be without you?
-
Also love that there's a setting for marine. How else would I know what to set the camera to if I'm on a boat?
-
Which begs the question: what are the chances of being at see on a boat with an old folding brownie?
-
In the 1920s, pretty good! But I'm wondering about reciprocity: would the same setting work for a dull group of people on an average day as for an average group on a dull day??
And further (edit): if you set your shutter just past 1/50th all your shots will be brilliant (too bad that guy shooting the forests in Wales [other thread] didn't have a Brownie Autographic).
-
I'd say a bong is pretty good at enhancing a group of dull people. 8)
-
Or rather, making them think they're not dull....
-
Or rather, making them think they're not dull....
Or make them forget that "dull" is actually a word that describes them... or a word at all.
-
try shooting without the lens hood :)
https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s
-
Or rather, making them think they're not dull....
Or make them forget that "dull" is actually a word that describes them... or a word at all.
All of the above, though this assumes that they're not Very Dull. ;)
-
There's also an other way of dealing with dull people... Glossy paint works wonders and it sure gets them moving :P
-
try shooting without the lens hood :)
https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s
Cool! That should buy me another stop of light as well, right? I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea :( ) and found myself constantly wanting 5.6 for shooting in open shade...
-
I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea :( )
A couple of these came out really well! (as per negative-peeping) I know I owe this thread results from these first two rolls, and I'm going to get on that immediately :o
-
Aaaand ... [drumroll] .... here they are! The first test roll on Ilford XP2 in HC110 1:100 for 1.5 hrs (semi-stand). It's possible I overdeveloped it, but I definitely overexposed it.
First up, our very own Filmwaster hookstrapped, as kind of a focus test. First shot, unknown focus (hey, it was my first time using the damn camera, I didn't know you could *focus* it :o ), second shot, focused at 8 feet, which was approximately the distance to the subject (Peter). Conclusion: this focus is whack.
(http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_16_xp2_hc110_1_100_1_5hr/20160816_001.jpg) (http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_16_xp2_hc110_1_100_1_5hr/20160816_002.jpg)
Next 3 are way overexposed. I reduced the exposure in Lightroom by about 2 stops, applied some highlight recovery, and increased contrast and sharpness a bit.
(http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_16_xp2_hc110_1_100_1_5hr/20160816_003.jpg)
(http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_16_xp2_hc110_1_100_1_5hr/20160816_004.jpg)
(http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_16_xp2_hc110_1_100_1_5hr/20160816_005.jpg)
Last one was my final focus test. Smaller aperture (maybe f/16? Or f/32?) and focused at 8ft which is what I estimated the distance to the first pole was.
(http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_16_xp2_hc110_1_100_1_5hr/20160816_006.jpg)
Yup, focus is definitely out of whack :D I guess I'm going to have to go with Andrej's conclusion that it's gotta be stopped way down to achieve any level of focus. Either that or my focus scale is off. Or, most likely, both. I'll try stopping way down and see what happens.
-
Woohoo! Success!!!!! Some adjustments may be necessary but it works. I particularly like the shot of the 59th street bridge from Roosevelt Island. Even the lens flare.
-
I like the bridge shots. I need to take mine out again, it's been a while since I last used it.
-
Woohoo! Success!!!!! Some adjustments may be necessary but it works. I particularly like the shot of the 59th street bridge from Roosevelt Island. Even the lens flare.
That's actually from Queens. Well, mainland Queens. By which I mean, the larger island of Queens :-[
NYC is confusing.
[edit]: had to look it up again. Roosevelt Island is part of Manhattan, not Queens. So my first sentence would have been sufficiently clear.
I repeat: NYC is confusing :-\
-
I usually settle for the old "bridge or tunnel?" neighborhood classification ::)
-
Lock shutter open. Put a wall of scotch tape across the film gate. Point the camera at something and look at the image on the faux ground glass with a loupe (or, lacking that, and inverted 50mm lens). Check focus at the center (for calibration) and the edges (for squareness of the lens standard to the film plane).
I just tried this. It looks fairly accurate at 8ft to me (using a reversed 50mm lens ... thanks for that tip too!). But it also seems fairly accurate until I step as close at 4ft or as far away as 15ft, so I think my eyes are not being that accurate as to what is "in focus". At any rate, I don't think I'm going to sweat it, it'll be my "everything's gonna be fuzzy on this camera" camera and try to shoot fast film on it so I can stop down past f/32 (or rather, "3"). Too bad, I think xpro'd slide film would look great on this, but that's slow stuff...
-
I wasn't kidding when I said it wouldn't be anything even approaching sharp until f/16. I did a static, tripod-mounted series of test shots on mine (with the four-element, two-group lens) and f/8 and f/11 (modern scale) are just soft all over. f/16 is reasonably sharp in the center. f/22 and f/32 are fairly uniformly sharp, but that's sharp by 100-year-old camera standards. If you were contact printing, it would look sharp at smaller apertures; scanning and pixel-peeping is always going to be disappointing.
Also consider that the lens is pretty long (I seem to recall around 100mm), so DOF is going to be quite shallow, especially close up.
-
I wasn't kidding when I said it wouldn't be anything even approaching sharp until f/16. I did a static, tripod-mounted series of test shots on mine (with the four-element, two-group lens) and f/8 and f/11 (modern scale) are just soft all over. f/16 is reasonably sharp in the center. f/22 and f/32 are fairly uniformly sharp, but that's sharp by 100-year-old camera standards. If you were contact printing, it would look sharp at smaller apertures; scanning and pixel-peeping is always going to be disappointing.
Also consider that the lens is pretty long (I seem to recall around 100mm), so DOF is going to be quite shallow, especially close up.
I was wondering what the focal length was. 100mm sounds about right, although do you think there's a difference for your 4-element lens and my 1-element lens? Also, my eyes aren't really used to 120 focal lengths. Do the above shots look about 100mm to you?
Today I tried Jonas' suggestion about removing the lens hood and shooting WIDE open. I'm expecting so little to be in focus that it turns into colored bokeh-art ;D
-
Well, it's a Brownie after all. Kodak never claimed it was a good camera...
-
I suspect your lens (which is actually a two-element cemented pair) is about the same focal length as mine. ~105mm is "perfect normal" for 6x9, so it's about the equivalent of 40mm in 135. Proportions are the same, so just think of it like a really big 40mm and you'll be fine.
With the aperture restrictor removed, I'm guessing you'll not only have soft focus everywhere but also a fair bit of distortion. Could be fun....
-
The only thing that actually annoys me on this camera (because, let's face it, its a 1920's camera so there's not much you can ask of it) is that the viewfinder is square. Why the hell would you do that? I have no idea what is going to end up in the picture at all. I've been assuming that it shows me the center of the picture (ie, the height is correct), but how am I supposed to put my main subject in, say, the left "third" of the 6x9 if I'm looking at a square? :o
-
It's probably missing the mask on top of the prism. It's a sort of +-shaped opening that is supposed to give you portrait and landscape framing. In practice, I've found that it is ridiculously conservative, showing only about 60% of what ends up on the film. I've thought about building a simple wire-frame external finder that is actually reasonably accurate.
-
Ahhh, so the top & bottom of the "+" do not appear on the picture? My viewfinder is rotatable for portrait or landscape, so I'm not sure why they'd have 2 +es, but I guess if you want to take a portrait picture 90o to your left and want to hold the entire camera up to your face, then I guess it would be useful ???
-
Also, if you end up building an external finder, build one for me too :D
-
try shooting without the lens hood :)
https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s
Cool! That should buy me another stop of light as well, right? I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea :( ) and found myself constantly wanting 5.6 for shooting in open shade...
I think they mention 6.8 for their camera. but it might differ since theirs is a 127-type and yours 120, right?
-
I wonder if this one has a fold-up viewfinder on the side?
-
I wonder if this one has a fold-up viewfinder on the side?
Mine doesn't, just the little rotating one next to the lens.
-
The way these work is that if you're shooting portrait, you just use the shape that's in portrait orientation and discard the two imaginary side bars. When shooting in portrait, you use the entire horizontal frame minus the two imaginary top and bottom parts.
This is why the viewfinder mask is shaped like a cross.
And don't forget that you have no parallax correction on these! That's why the viewfinder shows less than the taking lens.
-
Ok, now I get it. I should have opened up the camera first before writing that last post ;D
-
try shooting without the lens hood :)
https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s (https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s)
Cool! That should buy me another stop of light as well, right? I was trying to shoot yesterday without a meter using "sunny 16" on slide film (I know, bad idea :( ) and found myself constantly wanting 5.6 for shooting in open shade...
I think they mention 6.8 for their camera. but it might differ since theirs is a 127-type and yours 120, right?
Jonas, thanks for the tip! I tried firing off a few shots without the lens hood (exposing at 5.6, but this is negative film so it doesn't particularly care) and it does indeed look soft-focused and dreamy!
(http://www.indofunkstudios.com/images/brownie_autographic/2016_08_24_Fuji_400H_c41/20160824_005.jpg)
ps, yes, mine is a 120.