5.75cm Image Negatives from 1954

[DS256]

Looking at a bunch of negatives from parents from 1954. They look funny in that there are no sprockets, just a tightly cut negative. The image is 5.75x5.75cm. Kodak Safety Film is the only id on it.

I'm looking for help on two things:

• What size film is this likely?
• When I scan the negative, there is a red hue (see attached screen scrape from Lightroom). It is a B&W but I normally scan in colour. They appear under exposed. I can't really bring them back in Lightroom Classic and when I do, that's when I see the red.

Scanner is an Epson V500. Using standard Epson Scanner software.

Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Can you post a backlit photo pf the negative itself, showing us the entire negative out past the rebate?
It might actually be a colour negative, because there appears to be some colour information their:

 

[AgX]

Welcome to Apug !

The image is 5.75x5.75cm. What size film is this likely?

It is exactly the nominal 6x6cm size. Film will have been most likely
Rollfilm type 120

 

[MattKing]

If you are speaking in terms of the entire negative, including the edge rebate, 5.75 cm is smaller than 120 film, which is 6 cm wide.
But if you are speaking in terms of the image area, there may be some cameras that have a film gate that small.
If it is the correct size for 120, it could also be 620 as well - same size film, on different spools.

 

[DS256]

Welcome to Photrio.
Can you post a backlit photo pf the negative itself, showing us the entire negative out past the rebate?
It might actually be a colour negative, because there appears to be some colour information their:
View attachment 292698

I scanned the negative as a positive and the result is attached. Hope that meets what you were asking for. In terms of the rebate. There is not a lot outside the actual image.

 

[Kino]

You may have dichroic fog on the negative that is interfering with the scan. Try scanning in monochromatic.

 

[MattKing]

Looks pretty good to me
(from the negative image posted here)

 

[AgX]

But if you are speaking in terms of the image area, there may be some cameras that have a film gate that small.

All regulated image sizes are a bit or even quite a bit smaller than the nominal sizes.

For 6x6cm the DIN standard for instance for the gate at the camera is 56.5 x 56.5mm, if I am right

 

[MattKing]

I actually meant taking a digital photo of the negative itself with a source of light behind it.
I expect the original result with strong colour cast and narrow dynamic range came from scanning the negative as a colour image. 67 years ago, the film stocks were different enough as to confuse the scanning profiles and the "jiggery pokery" that the scanner and software does whether you want it to or not.

 

[DS256]

If you are speaking in terms of the entire negative, including the edge rebate, 5.75 cm is smaller than 120 film, which is 6 cm wide.
But if you are speaking in terms of the image area, there may be some cameras that have a film gate that small.
If it is the correct size for 120, it could also be 620 as well - same size film, on different spools.

The image area is the 5.75x5.75cm. Actually, I just remeasured it and it is likely 5.8x5.8cm. All the negatives are cut very close to this so I don't know the film size.
It is interesting you mentioned 620. My grandfather owned a Six-16 camera which used 616 film but that film was 2.5"x4.25 (63.5 mm × 108 mm) or the size of a postcard.

 

[DS256]

You may have dichroic fog on the negative that is interfering with the scan. Try scanning in monochromatic.

Thanks Kino. I scanned it in Greyscale and it came out quite well.

 

[shutterfinger]

Do some careful measurements of the film and check them in this chart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
Its likely 120/620 as previously stated.

 

[DS256]

Do some careful measurements of the film and check them in this chart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
Its likely 120/620 as previously stated.

It is a square image, so I went looking for square image cameras and found this link. So it may have been taken with like a Rolleiflex 6×6 using Kodak 117 film which has an image size of 57.15x57.15mm; close.

 

[Kino]

Nice! Dichroic fog usually manifests itself on the negative as a yellow or cyan film on the surface. You can see it if you turn the negative on edge and look almost parallel to the surface; it will reflect with some color. It's hard to see unless you tilt the negative just right and catch the reflection.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Kino. I scanned it in Greyscale and it came out quite well.
View attachment 292705

In case you didn't notice, this image is probably flipped. The edge printing is the clue.

 

[MattKing]

It is a square image, so I went looking for square image cameras and found this link. So it may have been taken with like a Rolleiflex 6×6 using Kodak 117 film which has an image size of 57.15x57.15mm; close.

As far as I can tell, only the original 1929 Rolleiflex used 117 film. That film was discontinued in 1949. 117 film is the same size as 120, on the same spool as 620, but with a 120 size keyhole.
I never knew about 117 film before today. It helps explain 620 film.

 

[gone]

It's interesting that it's supposed to be a square image, but the last (and very good) B&W scan looks decidedly not-square. It's taller than it is long. Maybe just the cropping.

 

[JensH]

It's interesting that it's supposed to be a square image, but the last (and very good) B&W scan looks decidedly not-square. It's taller than it is long. Maybe just the cropping.

Hi,

images/negatives out of a Rolleiflex Original are higher than wide to compensate parallax effects.
From the Rolleiflex Standard (1933) on they are square. A moving frame in the finder did this compensation then.

Jens

 

[JensH]

As far as I can tell, only the original 1929 Rolleiflex used 117 film. That film was discontinued in 1949. 117 film is the same size as 120, on the same spool as 620, but with a 120 size keyhole.
I never knew about 117 film before today. It helps explain 620 film.

Correct, 117 film (B I-6, six images per film only) was used first.
Most cameras were modified to take twelve shots on 620, some even to 120.

 

[Duceman]

In case you didn't notice, this image is probably flipped. The edge printing is the clue.

Actually, probably not.

Take a closer look, and you'll see that she's wearing a wristwatch, which >90% of people wear on their left wrist.

Also, I've found edge printing in that era to be a bit weird. Take the following two images, as examples.

First is of my grandfather taken in 1952, shortly after he was married; ring and wristwatch on the left hand, and I can assure you he wasn't driving in England. And yet, the edge printing is backwards.

Second is of my uncle taken a few years later in 1955; sign in the upper right shows the image is in the proper orientation, but the edge printing is backwards.

Now, I have other images from around that era where the edge printing is just the opposite. Boggled my mind for a while.

 

[MattKing]

Interesting about the edge printing. I've never encountered that reversal of what is now the norm.

 

[DS256]

It's interesting that it's supposed to be a square image, but the last (and very good) B&W scan looks decidedly not-square. It's taller than it is long. Maybe just the cropping.

Momus, I had to find a different negative that was dark to confirm the size. I doubt there is a crop on the negative involved.
However, you do raise the possibility that I am looking at more than one film type in this collection I found in a ring box.

 

[pbromaghin]

Deleted stupid post.