Folmer Graflex camera aerial 1940

[PBphoto]

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 ...

 

[MarkS]

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]

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

 

[mshchem]

FREESTYLE 1969!! 5 INCH X 100 FEET $3.95 USD

 

[PBphoto]

The good old days …
Now everything analog cost you an arm and a leg

 

[PBphoto]

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

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

 

[mshchem]

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

 

[MTGseattle]

View attachment 388336

FREESTYLE 1969!! 5 INCH X 100 FEET $3.95 USD

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?

 

[Paul Howell]

A box of Ansco sheet film was $4.95 now $43.88 about what box of Foma cost today.

 

[Dan Fromm]

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?

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

 

[MTGseattle]

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]

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]

View attachment 388336

FREESTYLE 1969!! 5 INCH X 100 FEET $3.95 USD

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.

 

[Eric Klingberg]

View attachment 388336

FREESTYLE 1969!! 5 INCH X 100 FEET $3.95 USD

This is awesome, thanks for sharing.

 

[Don_ih]

A box of Ansco sheet film was $4.95 now $43.88 about what box of Foma cost today.

That's a box of 50 Ansco - and a box of 25 Foma.

And Ansco film was waaaaaay better than Foma.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[mshchem]

This is awesome, thanks for sharing.

Just noticed no phone number obvious. Cut off the coupon and write a check (or money order). Different age!

 

[qqphot]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[koraks]

how inexpensive film used to be!

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

use 5"roll film

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.