Baby TLR Rollei

[Gunfleet]

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

 

[bdial]

The baby Rollei uses 127 roll film, Filmforclassics.com seems to be the most prolific supplier this side of the pond, Fotoimpex shows 3, ironically Rollei-branded; https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/medium-format-films-127-4x4/
panchromatic films existed in the 1950’s.

 

[Snowfire]

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]

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]

I think this fits better in the Medium Format Camera sub-forum, so l’m moving it there. Good luck with your quest.

 

[Gunfleet]

I think this fits better in the Medium Format Camera sub-forum, so l’m moving it there. Good luck with your quest.

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

 

[gone]

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.

 

[Gunfleet]

Well momus I agree. But im going to try!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Well momus I agree. But im going to try!

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]

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]

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.

 

[bernard_L]

The contact print - for such it is - is like a picture from a 2 1/4 undersized Rollei. Probably a baby?

2 1/4 is regular MF (aka 120 film). What size is the image area on your vintage contact print?

 

[xya]

2 1/4 is regular MF (aka 120 film). What size is the image area on your vintage contact print?

Yes, same idea here. You were faster than me...

 

[MattKing]

127 is typically 4cm x 4cm or 1 5/8" x 1 5/8"

 

[Gunfleet]

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]

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

 

[Gunfleet]

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

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.

 

[k.hendrik]

 

[Paul Howell]

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]

The Rolleis have Schneider Xenar lenses. IIRC the Xenar has 5 elements in 4 groups.

 

[Down Under]

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.

 

[Tel]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Gunfleet]

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.

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