Topic: Did I buy anyone a Brownie folder?

[Indofunk]

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?



Interestingly, my ebay, paypal, and bank account show no record of this purchase It came from a Goodwill shop in Indiana.

[Indofunk]

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.

[jharr]

My birthday is less than 2 months away. Now the surprise is ruined, but it's the thought that counts. Thanks so much Satish! 

[hookstrapped]

LOL

[Francois]

Don't you just love times like this!

[02Pilot]

Multiple personalities? Pretty cool if you've got two that are into film photography, and that maintain their own credit.

[clagom]

Funny mystery!

[Indofunk]

Mystery solved! 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

Now that was a great surprise!

[jharr]

 

[02Pilot]

Mystery solved! 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

Now that was a great surprise!

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.

[Indofunk]

Mystery solved! 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

Now that was a great surprise!

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? 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!

[Bryan]

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/

[Indofunk]

Mine says "1 2 3 4"



According to Camerapedia, this means f/8, f/16, f/32, and f/64. But you may be right, I just have no idea 

[Indofunk]

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...

[Francois]

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

And using the US inflation calculator, that would be somewhere between a whopping 163$ and 225$...
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)

[Indofunk]

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

[Bryan]

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. 

[Indofunk]

Oh well check that out. I assume the front element is gone! I wonder how that will affect the pictures

[Francois]

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.

[Bryan]

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. 

[02Pilot]

More than likely it's a meniscus lens behind the shutter blades. There's no place for a front element to screw in.

[Francois]

On many cameras the rear element swings in and out with a lever to compensate for close focus... Well, at least portrait focus.

[Indofunk]

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  Maybe I'll just finish shooting this roll and see how it comes out...

[Bryan]

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. 

[02Pilot]

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.

[Indofunk]

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!

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 ), 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?

[Bryan]

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. 

[02Pilot]

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!

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 ), 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?

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).

[Francois]

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.

[Terry]

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!!!!

[Indofunk]

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!!!!

 

Ilford XP2 souping now. Also, thanks for the calibration how-to

[Indofunk]

Aaaaaand ... negs are way overexposed 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   

[Terry]

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.

[Indofunk]

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

[02Pilot]

It's almost that easy to do it right: http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=kodakbb

[Indofunk]

It's almost that easy to do it right: http://pheugo.com/cameras/index.php?page=kodakbb

Even that is a bit too complicated for me 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

[Indofunk]

Also, as long as there are film cameras to be repaired, people will remember Geocities 

[Bryan]

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

[Sandeha Lynch]

Also, as long as there are film cameras to be repaired, people will remember Geocities 

LOL.  True, that.

[Terry]

Thanks for the link Bryan.  That's a real treasure trove.

[Francois]

Also, as long as there are film cameras to be repaired, people will remember Geocities 

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....

[jharr]

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?

[Indofunk]

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?

[Francois]

Which begs the question: what are the chances of being at see on a boat with an old folding brownie?

[Terry]

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).

[Sandeha Lynch]

I'd say a bong is pretty good at enhancing a group of dull people.   

[Terry]

Or rather, making them think they're not dull....

[jharr]

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.

[jojonas~]

try shooting without the lens hood

https://youtu.be/SfdsPsT6YXQ?t=48s

[Sandeha Lynch]

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.