Baby TLR Rollei

Gunfleet

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
93
Format
Medium Format
I'm sure to be posting this in the wrong place but don't mind/would be grateful if an admin put it in the right place.

In the 1950s there were strolling photogs making a living on the beaches of Britain. They would take a picture, give you a ticket from the sweatband of their Trilby, then you'd pick up the picture some hours later from a booth. I have just such a picture of myself with my grandparents in absolutely pristine, unyellowed condition. I'd like to repeat the photo (it's in Ramsgate) with my own grandchildren. I reckon this may mean ortho film. I have an array of analog cameras - used to be a part time pro so I have cameras of all sorts- ranging from 1920s Zeiss to normal Brownies of the 60s. So, my memory 60 years plus later is the guy used a tlr and I think I'd like to do the same. The contact print - for such it is - is like a picture from a 2 1/4 undersized Rollei. Probably a baby? Does the film for these exist? I can't find any. Any suggestions for developer? It looks like a yellow filter to me on the lens. Any other advice or sources?

Thanks in advance for reading and for any advice you may offer
John
 

Snowfire

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
98
Location
North Carolina
Format
35mm
A yellow filter is a common filter to use with b&w film.
There were other 127 cameras in addition to the miniature Rollei, though it is entirely possible that is what you saw.
 

GRHazelton

Subscriber
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
2,248
Location
Jonesboro, G
Format
Multi Format
There were a number of baby TLRs from Rolleiflex, Yashica, Topcon to name a few. These all used 127 film. There was also a leaf shutter SLR, the Komaflex (I own a Komaflex.) 127 film is still available, sort of, in very limited emulsions and it is rather expensive here in the States, easily $12.00 to $26.00 in BW, color negative Portra 160 $28.00, Porta 400 $33.00, transparency stock not listed or unavailable. This vendor is https://www.freestylephoto.biz They are in California, I've bought from them with satisfaction. BH and Adorama are also good vendors. You can see that the cost of film deters many folk from using their 127 cameras!

When I shot with my Komaflex in the late 1950s and early 1960s I used Ektachrome slide film which I often processed myself. The resultant slides would project in a 35mm machine with spectacular results. I shot BW panchromatic film from Kodak; I can't recall the name, probably what ever was equivalent to the late, lamented Plus X. I processed this in Willi Beutler's formula, which my Father and I mixed up. D-76 would also have been a good choice. We used Luminos graded paper for enlarging. I'm certain I never shot any ortho film; I doubt that it was readily available on the consumer market in the mid to late 1950s. Naturally a yellow filter would have been advisable shooting on the beach with panchromatic for a nice sky.

I enjoyed shooting with my Komaflex. It had a good 4 element f2.8 lens, handled well and gave good results. With good quality close up lenses and a good tripod I shot many closeups of flowers, etc. I still have it with its case and the original instruction book. It needs shutter work, which is expensive. If the film were cheaper and there were more choices I might get the work done. I have a fair number of film cameras, I like them working rather than as shelf queens.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,028
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I think this fits better in the Medium Format Camera sub-forum, so l’m moving it there. Good luck with your quest.
 
OP
OP

Gunfleet

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
93
Format
Medium Format
MattKing said:
I think this fits better in the Medium Format Camera sub-forum, so l’m moving it there. Good luck with your quest.
Click to expand...

Thanks all for these replies and mod for putting it in th right place
yours
John
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
It sounds unlikely that you could emulate the photo you have w/o knowing the camera, the developer used, the film used, etc. Films have changed since then too, but there's a wonderful supply of 135/120 films. To me, it sounds a lot easier to buy a few different rolls of 135 film, shoot them w/ or w/o a Y fltr as you wish, and then crop the neg square in the enlarger.

The cost and the time invested would be minimal. If you had 3 or 4 different films to work with and used 2 or 3 developers, you'd probably find something that worked for you.
 
OP
OP

Gunfleet

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
93
Format
Medium Format
Well momus I agree. But im going to try!
 

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,887
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format
Gunfleet said:
Well momus I agree. But im going to try!
Click to expand...

Another approach to emulate old emulsions and papers is to shoot in color and then use (that which will not be named but sounds a bit like robocop) to convert to B&W, varying the assorted color renderings. But it sounds like you are on a quest, not just trying to get results. Keep us up to date on your results!
 

Tel

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
970
Location
New Jersey
Format
Multi Format
The Baby Rollei is a tough one. (I have 6 of them--3 working.) It's a very complicated camera with multiple interlocking functions. If any one of them fails the camera will not work. Hence there are few repair people who will work on them. (Ken Ruth, in California, was probably the last one in the US who would do this and he retired probably five years ago.) Because of the collector market, however, they fetch a lot of money, even if they don't work. So beware of buying one.

I also have several Primo Jr. and Yashica 44 cameras. Both are much simpler designs and therefore more reliable to shoot. I would recommend looking for a Yashica 44 if you want to shoot 127. It's a robust design and the lenses are decent. (The reason to shoot a Rollei Baby is the glass.)

127 film is available. As mentioned above, "Film for Classics" rolls 127 and is generally available. The Frugal Photographer, located in Canada, loads and sells 127. I think you can still get Rerapan in some places. But if you get bitten by the 127 bug, Ilford sells 46mm (127) HP5 once every year in its misnamed "ULF" sale. You have to dig to find it on their website, but it's there, usually announced in the early part of the year with orders taken up until April and orders delivered in late summer or autumn.

Here's the page from 2021: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ulf-custom-specialist-film-manufacture-2021/
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,700
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
At one time I had 2 of the Yashica 44s, I really like the format, in the days when 127 was still around it a bit cheaper than 120 or 620. I have a couple of prints from a 44 on my wall.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,028
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
127 is typically 4cm x 4cm or 1 5/8" x 1 5/8"
 
OP
OP

Gunfleet

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
93
Format
Medium Format
ill have to get another look see and come back. I have to confess I have liver cancer and am often confined rather than wandering about. So may answer in 24 hours. best wishes John
 

GRHazelton

Subscriber
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
2,248
Location
Jonesboro, G
Format
Multi Format
John, I'm sure the other members of PhotoTrio join me in my sincerest hope for a remission or cure of your liver cancer. It is good to know that the survival rate is much better now than in the past.
George
 
OP
OP

Gunfleet

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
93
Format
Medium Format
GRHazelton said:
John, I'm sure the other members of PhotoTrio join me in my sincerest hope for a remission or cure of your liver cancer. It is good to know that the survival rate is much better now than in the past.
George
Click to expand...

You are certainly about as nice a group as I could find. Thanks.
ps I’m teetotal for 30 years, so none of us are free of risk.
 
Last edited:

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,700
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I no longer have a Yashica 44 and never owned a Rollei, from what I recall the Yaschica had a 3 element, not sure if a Cooke or other design, the Rollei has a 4 element lens, Tessar or other?
 

Tel

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
970
Location
New Jersey
Format
Multi Format
The Rolleis have Schneider Xenar lenses. IIRC the Xenar has 5 elements in 4 groups.
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
A few old memories here, rekindled by this thread about the baby Rolleiflexes.

Nobody much used baby Rolleis or Yeshivas back then, 127 film cameras were entirely Kodak P&Ss and all my aunts had one for family snaps. I wish I had all those negatives now, they have all vanished after the passing of my relations.

Those Baby Rolleis turn up on Ebay now and then, they were once much cheaper than their big brothers but sellers now want ridiculous prices (one wanted AUD$1600 for his a few weeks ago, naturally it didn't sell and eventually the ad was 'pulled').

If memory serves me right, amateurs in the 1950s all used 127 (more so 620 and now and then 120, usually in the older 1920s-1930s folding cameras) Verichrome Pan and developed in DK60a and Dektol. A few brave shooters had Plus-X and Tri-X. There were Agfa, Ilford and Perutz films available from our local pharmacy, 50 cents a roll, in whatever format you wanted. I remember 616 and 116, 122 was older but I believe Kodak produced this latter film until the 1980s. (Someone please kindly correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

One of my uncles (by marriage, to my mother's sister) did beachside photo work in the 1950s - he was a retired banker with no need to earn extra money, but it was his hobby, the summer season in New Brunswick (Canada) was short, from the end of June to Labor Day, so he had two months to get out and about and be social. I think the latter is what kept him going. He also did all our family baby and youngster portraits, and it's thanks to him that I have several dozen really nice images (and almost all the negatives, a gift from my also now late aunt after he passed away in 1979) of myself as a young child and well into school age. Happy memories.

He charged $1.00 for a print. Did them all himself, contact prints, in his home darkroom. Most folks paid in advance and wrote down their details on an envelope (he had a supply of those with him). He then posted the image a few days later. Paid all of six cents to the post office. Ah yes, the past.

He had a Rolleiflex MX, an early postwar one with a Zeiss Tessar 80/3.5, and used 120 roll film (and 620 on occasion when supplies of 120 ran low, somehow he got it to fit into his 'flex). I was keen on photography from an early age (and after a few years of playing with my family's 616 Brownie, I eventually got into good cameras and darkrooms at age 13 in 1961) and he was always pleased to show me his small collection of cameras - a Contax I, the Rollei, a Zeiss folder, one or two other small shooters.

I've drifted a bit, I know. Time now to "get back on track", as the horse racers say.

I used a baby Rollei, a long time ago, and got nice but rather soft negatives from it. Maybe entirely my own doing but I suspect the baby Xenar wasn't as sharp as the Xenar 80/3.5 on Rolleicords and a few now quite rare 1950s 'flexes. It gave passably good mid-tones. I made my usual 4x5" prints from the several rolls of 127 I shot with it. Still have those negatives. Somewhere.

The 'soft' rendition, also the scarcity of 127 roll film and the high price you will surely have to pay for same, would discourage me from ever owning and using one.
 
Last edited:

Tel

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
970
Location
New Jersey
Format
Multi Format
Good memories indeed. Thanks for sharing them.

My first camera was a Brownie Starmite. Replaced when I got to high school by a Pentax 35mm. Then a Nikon F when I got a real job and had my own money. Only got my first Baby about 8 years ago, when they were still (occasionally) going cheaply on the evilbay. They are a tad soft but wonderful for surreptitious street photography. Nobody seems to see them.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,700
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
My first camera was a Bell and Howell, plastic body, viewfinder, fixed lens, fixed focus, three speeds took 127, used until I was in high school, then used the schools Pentax, my first 35mm was a Kodak Retina IIIC B.
 

Snowfire

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
98
Location
North Carolina
Format
35mm
One of the big attractions of 127 back in the day was that it was the largest film format that could still fit in a standard slide projector (120 slides do not.) In fact, when gift shops sold slides of attractions to the public (remember those days?) a significant proportion of the bought slides were in 127 format.

If I were approaching this today and the above were not a consideration, I might find it easier to just use a 120 TLR. Sure, it is a bit larger, but film is much easier to get and the cameras themselves are much easier to find. Heck, I don't know if 127 slide mounts even exist any more.

If you really want a compact TLR there were a few 35mm models made, but the good ones are quite expensive.
 
OP
OP

Gunfleet

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
93
Format
Medium Format

This is a great post and contains great deal of information I was looking for thank you I’m using the dictating software here so please excuse slightly and ungrammatical reply it seems to me like leaving everything else aside I thought it might be verichrome actually believe in the side is problem of a small camera small films et cetera I can just dust off my old rolleicorf and use a mask to contact Print thank you again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…