Brownie Hawkeye - removed material a bit to let 120 spool spin freely

[BrianShaw]

It's like how Gillette sold razors to sell razor blades.

... in many cases they (and others after them) gave away or sold handles at ridiculously low prices.

Kodak (and Gillette) had strong profit motives.... but they also filled significant consumer needs/desires.

 

[jay moussy]

A the company shrunk, or drifted, where did the Kodak engineering, chemicals and optics folks go?
Maybe they just slowly retired?

 

[Donald Qualls]

The chemical folks were still working hard until past 2000; there were significant innovations in film based on late 1990s patents, as I recall. Mechanical, electronics, and optics folks in that era were all supporting the then-current stance of "Kodak is now a digital imaging company" (which they'd already botched by not diving in with both feet when they were leaders in the field, ten years earlier).

And yes, as things narrowed down to chemical and film production only, the ones who weren't chemically occupied retired...

 

[Matthew K]

as I understand it a large portion of their current business (I do not know percentage) is providing electronics manufacturers the masking film they need to print out circuit boards and the like.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I take nail clippers and trim the ends of the film spool.

 

[MattKing]

Most of the move toward smaller film sizes reflected the needs of amateur photographers and photo-finishers - two areas where Kodak did make lots of money.
It was considerably easier for photographers to use 126, 110 and disk films. And it was far simpler for photofinishers to develop and print 126, 110 and disk films in high speed, highly mechanized equipment.
As an example, Kodak used to have to have human operators for the 35mm Kodachrome slide mounting machines, because people were regularly sending in films that they had shot part way, rewound, reloaded into the camera and re-commenced shooting the latter part of the roll, with there being inconsistent frame space between the early and late frames. Machines at that time couldn't handle that task reliably. That wasn't needed for 126 or 110.
As for the 620 spool cameras, some are like the Medalist and the Tourist - the feed spool compartment will not allow you to insert a shaved or sanded 120 spool - they are just too tight!
The Brownie Hawkeye's I've played with permit it, although I find the film advance to be more difficult than it should be.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As for the 620 spool cameras, some are like the Medalist and the Tourist - the feed spool compartment will not allow you to insert a shaved or sanded 120 spool - they are just too tight!

If you both trim diameter and sand flange thickness, you can use a 120 supply in any 620 camera, even a Medalist II (though only a few of the drive keys can grip the larger slot in a 120 spool, especially with the plastic spools now in use). That's a lot of work and mess, though (easier to respool, IMO).

Also, IMO, there's so little collector value in a Hawkeye Flash, Duaflex, Bullseye, etc. that there's no good reason not to trim the supply spool holders if that'll let you feed from 120 supply. In one of the boxes I haven't unpacked yet from my last move (six years ago?!) I have an Argus 75 (IIRC) that I removed the film spool carriage from, so the 620 camera could use 120 film (and it's one of the few that can take up onto a 120 spool -- they must have had a deal with Kodak to make them restrict the supply). It's not like I was amateurishly hacking up a WWII combat theater Medalist to be able to use readily available film...

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

The Brownie Hawkeye's I've played with permit it, although I find the film advance to be more difficult than it should be.

The 2 Hawkeyes I have permit it, but to align with Matt, advancing the film can require a lot of pressure. In one of them its just a little difficult, in the other it was so difficult that the backing paper ripped while advancing just before the first image. The ripped one was Ektar while the just-tight roll was Fuji Acros 1. Could be either a slight difference in spools or that Hawkeyes suffered from slight mold inconsistencies.

Whatever the reason I plan on grinding a little bit out of the Hawkeyes to make them smoother. Like others have stated they aren't exactly collectors items, and I've already modded the feed spool spring in both anyway. While I'm in there I may try to add a threaded cable release and a tripod mount. I did enjoy shooting them - it was an experience sorta like using the Holga. Attached is an image from the one with Ektar (I retaped it in a dark bag with gaffers tape and rolled on past the first part of film). Lens was reversed.

Jeremy

 

[removed account4]

It was once a valid marketing philosophy, whether we like it or not!

auto industry still does it ..
JC Whitney parts just never fit right
neither do some parts sold at various auto parts stores
that save the home mechanic or paid professional a few bucks...
when they fix their car, mini bike, motorcycle chain saw, tractor, trailer, lawnmower &c

 

[Donald Qualls]

"Lock-in" goes back to the early days of the safety razor. Ever wonder why the slot in a double-edge blade has that weird shape? It's so it can fit half a dozen different brands of razors that originally had their own "Use only" blade format.

Kodak practiced lock-in with 616 before 620 was conceived; it was the same deal (same film and backing on a more compact spool). If you bought the Kodak camera, you were (at least for a few years) forced to buy Kodak film which, as was the case with the razors, was the whole point. "Give away the razors, as long as they buy our blades." The shaving equipment industry still does this -- every single variety of cartridge razor (even men's and women's products with the same number of blades from the same manufacturer) has a lock-out setup, so Handle A will only accept Type A blade cartridges, while Handle B will not (you have to buy Type B for those).

For that matter, the original Kodak No. 1 was locked in -- it came pre-loaded, and you had to send the whole thing back to Kodak for processing; it came back reloaded along with your prints. George Eastman understood the business of consumer supply.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I was under the impression that Ansco introduced their own 620 film shortly after Kodak initiated the whole debacle.

Kodak's given reason for 620, that it made for smaller and more convenient cameras, seems rather idiotic when most of the cameras it went into were box cameras. Kodak's 620 loaded Medalist wasn't exactly known for being svelte. The 'thinner' camera angle only makes sense for folders - to the best of my knowledge these were only made by Kodak/Nettle.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I was under the impression that Ansco introduced their own 620 film shortly after Kodak initiated the whole debacle.

Kodak's given reason for 620, that it made for smaller and more convenient cameras, seems rather idiotic when most of the cameras it went into were box cameras. Kodak's 620 loaded Medalist wasn't exactly known for being svelte. The 'thinner' camera angle only makes sense for folders - to the best of my knowledge these were only made by Kodak/Nettle.

Apparently so, as there are a few rolls out there:

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ansco did produce 620 film, but it was only after Kodak sold enough 620 cameras to make it worth their while. There were a couple other American companies that produced 620 cameras, too, but I don't know of any that really took advantage of the "more compact camera" idea -- Kodak may have claimed that was possible, but that's like claiming that Mazda rotary engine enables a lower hood -- it does but that's not what it's for.