Vintage photography

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I rewound some 35mm color film on 127 paper and shot it through my Kodak Bullet. Here is a pic of the Bullet and one of the images from my project.
Sean

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i77/slsmart138/cameras/DSC01998.jpg

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i77/slsmart138/cameras/scan0005.jpg

edit: The camera and film were the project, not the car. I wish it were mine but it's not.

Cool. That lens takes nice pics, would make for some convincing vintage 40s photos if black and white. 35mm is the same width as the 127 I take it?
(Too bad about the car.)

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Here's the site I found on re-spooling 120 film to 620 spools I mentioned before.

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/620.html

 

[sean138]

35mm is smaller than 127. I had to eyeball it in the dark to get it centered on the 127 backing paper. The people at Walgreens (where I got the film developed) thought I was crazy. The images were 2x as long as a normal 35mm neg so they had to hand center the frame to print it. I am working on a mask to put in the camera so that it will expose at about the same size as a normal 35mm neg. Alot of trouble to go to so I can use this camera but it's fun. The car was for sale. It sold for about $20,000.

I also have an Argus A2B and A Kodak 35 f5.6 that I toy around with.

Sean

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

35mm is smaller than 127. I had to eyeball it in the dark to get it centered on the 127 backing paper. The people at Walgreens (where I got the film developed) thought I was crazy. The images were 2x as long as a normal 35mm neg so they had to hand center the frame to print it. I am working on a mask to put in the camera so that it will expose at about the same size as a normal 35mm neg. Alot of trouble to go to so I can use this camera but it's fun. The car was for sale. It sold for about $20,000.

I also have an Argus A2B and A Kodak 35 f5.6 that I toy around with.

Sean

I have an idea. If you can make a mask for inside the camera, why not modify some 127 spools to center your film for re-spooling? You sound like the handy, DIY type, so maybe you could fashion some sort of spacers to put at either end of the spool?
(I think the people at Walgreen's need to be educated. )

 

[Alan Eardley]

120 to 620

The medium format site relates something I have been doing for years and can recommend - using a 120 camera (in this case a Hawkeye) to transfer 120 roll film to 620 spools. Just load and wind!

Alan

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The medium format site relates something I have been doing for years and can recommend - using a 120 camera (in this case a Hawkeye) to transfer 120 roll film to 620 spools. Just load and wind!

Alan

Yes! That's a stroke of genius!

 

[sean138]

I'll give the spacer idea a try since this is an ongoing project. After the guy at Walgreens understood what I was doing, he thought it was neat. He liked the car too. I have had a thought to fabricate a new back that would allow me to use 35mm in the canister.
Sean

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I'll give the spacer idea a try since this is an ongoing project. After the guy at Walgreens understood what I was doing, he thought it was neat. He liked the car too. I have had a thought to fabricate a new back that would allow me to use 35mm in the canister.
Sean

Hmm,...yeah. Maybe just a matter of installing some guide pins in the body,...and maybe utilizing a 35mm pressure plate from an old film back?

 

[MrBern]

127

fyi, Frugal Photgrapher still stocks 127 roll film.
As well as 110 & 126 catridge film
and minox micro-film

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/

 

[Alan Eardley]

Mr. B,

That is amazing! The site even contains a warning about the 127 plastic spools (which it informs us come from Croatia) jamming in Baby Rollei models. Don't I know that!

Alan

fyi, Frugal Photgrapher still stocks 127 roll film.
As well as 110 & 126 catridge film
and minox micro-film

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/

 

[MrNewportCustom]

I will be using this . . .

. . . along with the camera shown in my above post.

Does anyone know the light situations for using it "hood closed," "hood open" or "hood off"?
That's the only thing that confuses me about it.


Lee

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Wow, a GE DW-68! I have one just like it, except without the fancy case. It's from the forties, but not exactly known for it's dead on accuracy.
Here's the instructions,...bookmark this page!....http://www.butkus.org/chinon/flashes_meters/ge_exposure_meter/dw-68/ge_dw-68.htm
More vintage photo stuff here,.....http://www.butkus.org/chinon/flashes_meters.htm

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Nick! Yes! Thank you!!


Lee
_________________________

I love the Lounge and its members!

 

[Vornholt]

Be careful using that meter. The photocells used in that era do not generally age well. The voltage output has almost certainly dropped over time, to the point where the meter may well be a stop or two off.

For example, I use a vintage Rollei 2.8F from roughly 1970, much newer than that meter, and the on-board photocell was so weak the meter read 2.5 stops off. If you want to use it (and I have a similar GE meter) then I suggest checking it against a modern meter such as a Gossen Luna Six, or similar.

Vintage is great ( and I use my GE every now and then) but incorrect exposure is not!

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Thank you for the warning. Did your meter read over or under? I'm guessing under.


Lee

 

[Doctor Strange]

Hey, I've got one like that too. My observation of old Selenium meters is that if they have been kept out of the light (case closed, in a drawer or camera bag) for most of their existance, they can still be remarkably accurate. The meter on my 1963 Minox B is dead-on, and I've had 60s and 70s Pen EE models that produced entire rolls of perfectly exposed shots.

And if you're using modern print film, most emulsions have plenty of exposure latitude, so even if your a stop or two off, you should get nice results. (Slide films are less tolerant of errors.)

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Actually, yes, this meter has been not only in it's case (pictured behind it), but tucked away in a drawer, as well. For the pictures I'll be taking at John's next Saturday, I picked up two rolls of 400ASA T-MAX TMY 120.

EDIT: It's a clear, sunny day here in So Cal, and I just now (11:45 PST) took a reading on a concrete wall in the shade of the eave, meter about a foot away, cover open, and the needle pointed to 20, which translated to f8 at 1/250th for 400 ASA.

Lee
_______________________

It's been a while since I last shot medium format.

 

[Vornholt]

If it's been stowed all this time, then you may well be OK. I'd still check it, though. Go to a camera store and see if they'll check it against a digital meter or a Gossen type slide rule meter for you. Most will.

I have a Sekonic digital, and I'm suddenly feeling a need to verify the GE.

I also have a Rollei 3.5F circa 1960, and it's meter was only a stop off. I have no idea what treatment it had received over it's life, though.

 

[Jack Armstrong]

Nick, if memory serves, most cameras that use 120 can also use 220, which is twice as long.

No, not true. 220 film is the same format as 120, but it doesn't have a paper backing (except at the leader), so it requires a pressure plate with greater tension to hold the film flat. My Mamiya C330f that I used to use in the Seventies has a rotating pressure plate, to select between 120 and 220. Only a camera that's designed to use 220 can actually use it properly.

 

[Vornholt]

Also, you can't use 220 in cameras that use the red window as a frame counter. The paper backing on 120 keeps the film from fogging, but 220 will fog through the counter opening.