1940's B&W photo .. Roll Film 3-3/8" wide?

[peter k.]

Doing clean up of my parents films they shot, ... came across some large negatives, the width is 3-3/8" wide, and has been cut on each end with sissors, so most likely roll film.
No information on neg, but a small number designating the image number.

So the question, it has to be roll film, but who use to make this type of film?
And what kind of camera was it shot in?

Here's a sample image scanned in a 4x5 film holder.

Found in an envelope that was labeled: - 1940 Rochester - Walkins Jolen
Anyone familiar with this area where this may have been shot?
Would most likely in the Rochester area ... or someplace else on the east coast, as that's where they lived back then.

 

[MattKing]

Thread moved from the site maintenance discussion sub-forum to the B&W film sub-forum. And title tweaked.
And now I can access the photo - it wasn't possible before.

 

[JerseyDoug]

It sounds like 122 film, also called postcard size. Kodak made it for certain and likely other manufacturers too. It was used in folding cameras.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Camera was probably similar to a Kodak No. 3 http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/No._3A_Autographic_Kodak_Special producing 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 images on 122 film.

I think there was also a model that took 118 (?) film producing 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 negatives.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a list of many of them:
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Film_sizes_and_designations

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Is the factory edge parallel to the long edge or short edge of the frame?

 

[peter k.]

Is the factory edge parallel to the long edge or short edge of the frame?

Factory edge is parallel to the long edge

 

[peter k.]

Makes sense that it was used in a folding camera.

I think there was also a model that took 118 (?) film producing 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 negatives.

That's the correct size ..
Interesting to have that large rolling film size ... of course the advantage of sheet film is you can take one shot or more, not have to shoot the whole roll.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Interesting to have that large rolling film size

At the time enlargers were not common and most prints were made by contacting.

So a 3x5" negative on roll film made perfect sense as then you got 3x5" prints.

 

[cmacd123]

when I was just starting to play with cameras, 122, was just discontinued, and 616 and 116 were still made.

620 was the small core version of 120 like 616 was the small core version of 116

 

[cmacd123]

as for the reason for the BIG negatives, in the 1800s and 1900s, photo finishers generally just provided contact prints, so the size of the negative was the size of your pictures.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

Th

Factory edge is parallel to the long edge

Then that makes it likely that it was either 118 or 124 roll film. The difference being that 118 had numbers on the bottom of the backing paper and 124 on the top. Both produced 3.25 x 4.25 inch negatives with the long edge parallel to the factory edge of the film.

119 and Graflex No.51 are also roll film formats producing 3.25 x 4.25 inch negatives but they had the short edge of the frame parallel to the factory cut edge of the frame, making the rolls slightly over 4.25" tall. The difference being 119 was spooled conventionally, but Graflex No.51 was spooled inside out with the backing paper facing in towards, and the film emulsion facing outward from, the spool core. This worked with the design of the Graflex roll holders.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

peter... I have nothing to add about the film, but the location of that picture is Watkins Glen:

Watkins Glen State Park - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org