Help me narrow down which 6x8 camera my grandfather used circa 1950?

[kylewilcox]

I would love some insight on which commonly-available 6x8 cameras were being used in the early 1950's in America.

Here's the backstory:
I was looking in a drawer in my grandparents' house over Thanksgiving and found an inch-thick stack of 6x8 negatives that my now 97-year-old grandfather took of my mom when she was under 2 years old (along with my grandma and surrounding events), which puts them at about 1952-3. My grandpa was never, in my experience, a person who cared about photography per se, and now has dementia. I asked my grandma about them and the camera he might have used and she swears that they never had a "nice" camera and would likely have used whichever consumer camera was widely available at the time. He was a newly-minted civil engineer in his mid-late 20's (or maybe 30, having served in the merchant marines during the war) working on the construction of the Garrison Dam in North Dakota.

There are no peculiarities about the borders of the images that are obvious to me, except that some have corners that are slightly more rounded off than others, possibly indicating that he used 2 different cameras. Occasional light leaks that extend farther than just the top and bottom edge, but nothing consistent.

Even though I'd find it interesting to know what camera(s) he was using, the negatives are the real treasure to me, and my heart skipped a beat when I found them resting there. I'm starting to scan them to share them with my grandparents so I can learn a little more about that period in their lives. Maybe it will spur some memories in him and help my grandma, who I fear is suffering more than he with his disease.

 

[MattKing]

Are you sure they aren't 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" rather than 6 cm x 8 cm?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Sheet film or roll film? Sounds like sheet film and, as Matt has already said 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (= nominal 6x9).

If sheet film, US-made candidates include, in order of my estimates of production volumes, 2x3 Graphic, 2x3 Graflex, 2x3 Busch Pressman, 2x3 B&J Watson, 2x3 Printex, 2x3 Rilex, ... I'm sure I missed some. Also a variety of more-or-less pocketable folders made before 1930 in Rochester by Kodak and companies that Kodak eventually bought.

 

[Two23]

I'm betting it was a Kodak folder, using 120 film (also called B2). A prime candidate would be the Kodak Tourist, but it could be one of many other very similar cameras. I doubt it was something as expensive as a Grahic or Zeiss Ikonta. I've not heard of any 6x8cm format cameras until the later Fuji 680 (very expensive, very modern.) Was almost certainly 6x9.

http://www.krphoto.com/kodaktourist.html


Kent in SD

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would love some insight on which commonly-available 6x8 cameras were being used in the early 1950's in America.

Here's the backstory:
I was looking in a drawer in my grandparents' house over Thanksgiving and found an inch-thick stack of 6x8 negatives that my now 97-year-old grandfather took of my mom when she was under 2 years old (along with my grandma and surrounding events), which puts them at about 1952-3. My grandpa was never, in my experience, a person who cared about photography per se, and now has dementia. I asked my grandma about them and the camera he might have used and she swears that they never had a "nice" camera and would likely have used whichever consumer camera was widely available at the time. He was a newly-minted civil engineer in his mid-late 20's (or maybe 30, having served in the merchant marines during the war) working on the construction of the Garrison Dam in North Dakota.

There are no peculiarities about the borders of the images that are obvious to me, except that some have corners that are slightly more rounded off than others, possibly indicating that he used 2 different cameras. Occasional light leaks that extend farther than just the top and bottom edge, but nothing consistent.

Even though I'd find it interesting to know what camera(s) he was using, the negatives are the real treasure to me, and my heart skipped a beat when I found them resting there. I'm starting to scan them to share them with my grandparents so I can learn a little more about that period in their lives. Maybe it will spur some memories in him and help my grandma, who I fear is suffering more than he with his disease.

Welcome to APUG

Can you post photographs of the camera?

 

[tkamiya]

Could it possibly be like Kodak Brownies? How sharp were the images? Most (many) of them were single element type, so images were decidedly soft. They were never meant to be enlarged, so prints were the same size as the negative. Sharpness really didn't matter much then.

Next one up may be Kodak Tourist. They take QUITE a sharp image.

My understanding is, Brownies were more of "people's camera" and Tourists were enthusiast type. Since your father wasn't interested in photography, it might just be Brownies. I have both. Quite fun to take them out every now and then....

 

[Oren Grad]

Didn't some of the Graflex rollholders make an actual image area that was closer to 6x8 than to either 6x7 or 6x9?

 

[kylewilcox]

Thanks for all the replies!

I measured the image portion of the negative to be 57.5 by 81 mm. I didn't consider that it might be sheet film. While they are all individually cut, I think they were in fact cut by a person because of the slight angles of some of the ends where someone would have cut from a roll of 120 (or 620). I'll verify that tomorrow because I left them in my office with my scanner. Does 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 have notches like 4x5? These negatives don't. I'll reiterate that my grandma said they never payed attention to cameras. That doesn't sound like sheet film to me.

Regarding Brownie vs other, the images are decently sharp. (Does this work?):

 

[Regular Rod]

These are from 120 or 620 roll film and the negatives have been cut up into single images. I used to do that in the '50s for contact printing in a single frame holder. Today they stay in strips. The camera would be either a Box camera like a Brownie, or a folding camera. Your Grandma is right about the camera. Judging by the image of a moving person I'd guess whatever it was it had an eye level viewfinder. Moving subjects with a Box camera or a camera with a waist level finder.... Not easy!

Whatever camera is of no matter. The fact the negatives have survived is. You have a treasury there to add to your family history. Get the scans done and take them round the old folk to see if they can identify who, what, where and when.

RR

 

[Dan Fromm]

Didn't some of the Graflex rollholders make an actual image area that was closer to 6x8 than to either 6x7 or 6x9?

Oren, older Graflex roll holders with no pin rollers at the ends of the gate have gates that are, IIRC (too lazy to go upstairs and measure one) 81 mm long. Newer ones with pin rollers have gates 78 mm long. All shells marked RH-x have pin rollers. And there were intermediate shells (marked Graphic 23 or something like that) with pin rollers. When in doubt, open the roll holder, remove the film carriage and look.

 

[bdial]

As stated, given that you're grandparents were not photo-enthusuasts, the cameras were most likely roll-film folders.
To give you an idea of the camera and time, this is a photo of my father, circa 1950, I've never seen the camera he was holding, but I have his Speed Graphic.
The location was probably somewhere in southern Illinois or Indiana.

 

[Regular Rod]

What a splendid hat!

RR

 

[tkamiya]

Regarding Brownie vs other, the images are decently sharp. (Does this work?)

Thanks for the image! I can tell you, it probably wasn't Kodak Tourist. It probably wasn't more serious folder types either. I'm noticing swirly refocused parts everywhere except at center. I get that with many of my OLD cameras with a single lens optics. Sharpness is similar to. So I'm still thinking it can be one of the Brownies.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for the image! I can tell you, it probably wasn't Kodak Tourist. It probably wasn't more serious folder types either. I'm noticing swirly refocused parts everywhere except at center. I get that with many of my OLD cameras with a single lens optics. Sharpness is similar to. So I'm still thinking it can be one of the Brownies.

There are MANY cameras, my 1907 kodak 1a has 6x8 images. There's were multiple models made basically every year, so you'll never figure out the exact model unless you find the camera in the house

 

[kylewilcox]

Thanks again for all the wonderful suggestions and input!

It's fun to imagine what he was using, but I think Rod nailed it.

Whatever camera is of no matter. The fact the negatives have survived is. You have a treasury there to add to your family history. Get the scans done and take them round the old folk to see if they can identify who, what, where and when.

RR

For everyone's interest, here are a few more images:


Garrison Dam section

Car hood overlooking part of the dam project (side project - identify the car .)

My mom and a black dog

My mom (...and my mom) and a creepy bunny

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks again for all the wonderful suggestions and input!

It's fun to imagine what he was using, but I think Rod nailed it.


For everyone's interest, here are a few more images:


Garrison Dam section

Car hood overlooking part of the dam project (side project - identify the car .)

My mom and a black dog

My mom (...and my mom) and a creepy bunny

Wow! Those are sharp! And well exposed!

Does anyone have any idea in your family if this was even taken with a Kodak camera? There were other cameras of the day with the same format that produce really beautiful images accurately etc., Kodak was one of the good ones but there were a few others, it's possible it was a different maker altogether.

Be grateful you've had them.

 

[kylewilcox]

I'm still looking through them for "mirror selfies."