How would you go about duplicating Kodak No.1 Camera's asthetics using equipment commonly available today?

[Hamster]

If you are in for a little experimentation, help me check this configuration, as I do not have my 2x3 and 4x5 Graflex on hand at least for a few weeks, so I can't verify if any of this would work.

I wanted to make some of those circular prints from Kodak No.1/2 cameras from the early days of photography.

The circular prints are 2.5" for the Kodak No.1 (1888) and 3.5" (1889) for the Kodak No.2

From what I gather, the Kodak No.1 uses an Achromatic Meniscus with Focal length about 57 mm with fixed f11 aperture.

I know using only the rear group of a Tessar type approximate an Achromatic Meniscus and can form an image, but I cannot remember if it extends or reduce the effective focal length or what size image circle it would project. I am also not sure how much of the projected image circle is usable.

Maybe the rear group of an 135mm Optar/Raptar would be a good starting point to test? I only have 135mm Optar and 6-3/8" Ilex Paragon.

So if I use a circular mask on film plain and directive positive paper in the 2x3 or 4x5 film holder, I should be able to approximate the aesthetics of Kodak No1/2 prints?

How would you do it with the equipment you have on hand?

I have attached an image to illustrate what I'm getting at, photo credits Daily Mail UK.

 

[MCB18]

Honestly I’d probably just put a circular mask on a 6x6 back for RB67 and call it good.

 

[4season]

Sounds like a fun project! Holga 120 uses an uncoated 60 mm f/8 acrylic or glass meniscus lens, the latter being denoted by "G" in the model #. I have never tried the G variants, but IIRC they're supposed to deliver a higher-fidelity look. Maybe all you need to do is to install a circular mask.

 

[koraks]

How would you do it with the equipment you have on hand?

In terms of a lens, I'd look for a magnifying glass of a suitable focal length. Those are simple meniscus lenses. Make an aperture for it and put it in some sort of tube. Hardware store project; maybe some 3D printing. Marry the makeshift lens to your Graflex or any other camera of your choice. Shoot paper negatives to get orthochromatic sensitivity and low speed. Mask the prints with a circular mask. Profit! That's how I'd do it, and then adjust on the basis of the inevitable challenges along the way...

 

[xkaes]

On the bottom of this page there are lots of links to websites on how to attach and use old lenses (from old broken cameras) on newer (non-broken) cameras.

If you have trouble accessing the page, use an older browser or a VPN or in FIREFOX a "Private tab".

https://www.subclub.org/fujinon/softfocus.htm

 

[reddesert]

Magnifying glasses tend to be biconvex lenses. They will make an image, but positive meniscus lenses make a better image. The concave side of the meniscus goes toward the subject.

The rear group of a Tessar-type will typically have a focal length about 0.6-0.7x the focal length of the total, so the rear group of a 135mm tessar isn't a bad place to start.

Closeup filters are convex meniscus lenses, with a focal length that is 1000mm/diopter number. So a common +10 diopter closeup is a 100mm f.l. meniscus lens. It's a lot faster (larger aperture) than the cited 57mm f/11 on a Kodak No. 1, which is about 5mm diameter. You would want to mask the closeup lens down to a small diameter clear aperture; that will also improve the images. You can also find meniscus lenses like this on many box cameras, Brownies, and so on.

 

[Don_ih]

I'd just use one of the older box cameras I have. The film speed and sensitivity would be more important for getting an accurate look for the photos.