Folmer Graflex camera aerial 1940

PBphoto

Member
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
69
Location
the Netherlands
Format
Med. Format RF
I just bought a Folmer Graflex camera Aerial 1940, the other day ...
I can't find much on it on the internet (manual, film type etc.). I suspect it is 4x5 ?

Can any of you help me out
I would love to actually shoot with it ...
we tried as an experiment to shoot on a 120 film
the camera works but it doesn't transport the 120 film properly
so a lot of double exposures ... ;-)

hope there are some Aerial experts around ...
 

Attachments

  • Scherm­afbeelding 2025-01-19 om 00.36.02.jpg
    760.2 KB · Views: 69
  • IMG_9912.jpg
    900 KB · Views: 65

MarkS

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
503
I've never seen one of these before. But it looks to use 5"roll film, probably darkroom-loaded in proprietary cassettes. A common format for aerial cameras is 5" square.
But someone out there will know more than I do!
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,635
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
In the US thus stuff was sold off as military surplus from places like Freestyle Photo back in the 60's. It was sold cheap, 5" aerial film. Not really good for much without film, the developing machine and of course a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
OP
OP

PBphoto

Member
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
69
Location
the Netherlands
Format
Med. Format RF
mshchem said:
In the US thus stuff was sold off as military surplus from places like Freestyle Photo back in the 60's. It was sold cheap, 5" aerial film. Not really good for much without film, the developing machine and of course a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Click to expand...

Well, I got that last one covered
Film is the problem
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,635
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Except in 1969 my weekly allowance from my parents was $2, I had a newspaper delivery route that I made maybe a dollar a day 2 dollars a couple times a month mowing.

About $45 a month. Gasoline was 27 cents a gallon

It's all relative. My recommendation is through the camera in the attic until you come to your senses
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,823
Format
Multi Format
MTGseattle said:
I had to google the F56 aerial camera. It's a big bugger. $13.83 for an 8x10 Fidelity film holder, where's my inflation calculator?
Click to expand...

Mike, these old crocks are (a) fascinating and (b) poisoned gifts. So are most, not all, of the lenses that flew on them.
 

MTGseattle

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
1,383
Location
Seattle
Format
Multi Format
I hear you Dan. I have this inkling that I "need" one of the military cameras. It would be for display and not for use, but the potential user copies are quite expensive if complete and still fraught with issues.
 

btaylor

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,253
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Large Format
I remember all that surplus stuff at Freestyle back in the ‘60’s. I talked my dad into taking me to the old store on Cahuenga when I was 11 or 12. Big aerial cameras and motors stacked on racks. Little of it was useable for regular photography. But a heck of a place for short dated or “expired” film and paper for a kid’s paper route earnings!
 

btaylor

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,253
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Large Format
mshchem said:
View attachment 388336

FREESTYLE 1969!! 5 INCH X 100 FEET $3.95 USD
Click to expand...
I spent so much time perusing the old Freestyle ads! I bought all my film and most of my paper there over the years- a lot of bulk loading and weird paper textures. Shot my movies on their 8mm film and in college shot my projects on whatever cheap 16mm stocks I could afford. Loved that place. I’m so happy they are still around although their new store is a shadow of the place they had on Sunset.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,680
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I used Ansco and GAF, was cheaper than Kodak, the Ansco ASA 80 film in all format was as good as Plus X, but Ansco and later GAF 500 was not in same league as TriX or HP4 later HP5.
 

qqphot

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 12, 2022
Messages
220
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Format
35mm RF
God almighty, $4 for a 100 foot bulk roll of Tri-X. It's $189 now. Even accounting for inflation since 1969, it's still 5.5x the price.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,894
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
qqphot said:
God almighty, $4 for a 100 foot bulk roll of Tri-X. It's $189 now. Even accounting for inflation since 1969, it's still 5.5x the price.
Click to expand...

Yes, except back then that product was a high volume seller into the commercial and industrial market, manufactured using high capacity modern (for the time) equipment that was very efficient. The sort of use that we make of 100 foot bulk rolls was even then just a tiny percentage of its sales - there is even a possibility that that ad is for production over-runs and unexpected extra inventory. The major commercial users were buying truckloads at a time.
Whereas now it is a specialty item made in far tinier volumes than "regular" film, on relatively antiquated machinery, using large amounts of slow and expensive manual labour. And essentially all of the users are buying it in small quantities and relatively infrequently.
Those differences make that product a poor one for comparison.
 

qqphot

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 12, 2022
Messages
220
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Format
35mm RF

Of course the market has grown much smaller, but I hope it's still okay to marvel at how inexpensive film used to be!
 
Last edited:

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,778
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
qqphot said:
how inexpensive film used to be!
Click to expand...

Except that if you compensate for inflation, it wasn't. Interestingly, it simply hasn't changed much.

MarkS said:
use 5"roll film
Click to expand...

I think that's still being made. Kodak Aerocolor IV would be one particular film stock that could theoretically be used in this camera. Great way to snap through a month's salary.
 

choiliefan

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,310
Format
Medium Format
Looking at a Graflex K20 on the bay currently with several rolls of film included. There's a couple shots showing 120 loaded on the spools, so someone tried it at some point. It may give you some ideas about adapting film until Ilford custom's 2025 campaign begins. Presuming they do.
Here the auction: https://www.ebay.com/itm/126891392676?_skw=graflex+arial&itmmeta=01JJ1VW8KS8PS0G6MZ33E2CHKQ&hash=item1d8b50fea4:g:kJ8AAOSwSfBnQ3wX&itmprp=enc:AQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx+KZ9MfhVJKkXnNoXlFvuHHuWqqzBGgzexOghxqbzTvaQ1INTC9BzX8SCoY+JPH06wHfB0U3y+FVDU7yF7GRHYdMZcns2CigSn1WWkJz/qdJfdL7iAy6tbAj5ZKrkyPLK3RB2NUPUr9NPizsAs9K8FJKY26pKXcokQ2vMENPmh1ifm5Rhu+jAZ6L1uYoZHMWLGvRW/Q9nTFLgDaUhiEgltCR+hp4J1H4hnV9mE9r2KWdAlaIIsZbpX0v57NMhOG6o0pruG9En3HjwIKfZXtckVWkc1zXJAriSeFIVvpYLZvxvhs/tXa7JlA==|tkp:Bk9SR-yK8buQZQ
 

qqphot

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 12, 2022
Messages
220
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Format
35mm RF
koraks said:
Except that if you compensate for inflation, it wasn't. Interestingly, it simply hasn't changed much.
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct. $4 in 1969 compensated for inflation (per https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1969?amount=4 ) is "equivalent" to $34 in current USD. The price of a 100 ft roll of Tri-X is currently $189, or 5.5x that, as I said.

At any rate, the whole thing is a frivolous comparison with no basis in real economic factors, I just thought it was interesting to see that an amateur photographer in 1969 would face a meaningfully smaller cash outlay for their consumable supplies.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,894
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
qqphot said:
Of course the market has grown much smaller, but I hope it's still okay to marvel at how inexpensive film used to be!
Click to expand...

Absolutely okay.
But it is important to understand that the changes in the size of the market aren't consistent through the product lines.
In terms of percentages, the shrinkage in the market for 100 foot bulk rolls is far, far, far greater than the shrinkage in the market for 36 exposure individual rolls.
Back then, those rolls were mainly a high volume commercial product. That market has gone completely - school photos, ID photos, other high volume uses aren't on film now.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,778
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
qqphot said:
No, that's not correct. $4 in 1969 compensated for inflation (per https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1969?amount=4 ) is "equivalent" to $34 in current USD. The price of a 100 ft roll of Tri-X is currently $189, or 5.5x that, as I said.
Click to expand...

OK, for the specific case of Kodak bulk rolls. But in general, it turns out that compensated for inflation, film hasn't moved all that much in price. I do agree something 'funny' is going on with Kodak bulk rolls.

qqphot said:
I just thought it was interesting to see that an amateur photographer in 1969 would face a meaningfully smaller cash outlay for their consumable supplies.
Click to expand...

I think that's not really accurate though. Relative to their income, photographers are arguably on average better off today, at least in the US and Europe. Or at least not any worse.
 
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…