Kids dressed up for the darkroom

[Moopheus]

I was sorting through a box of old family photos, and came across this print of two kids in a darkroom. I'm guessing from the gear shown and the way the kids are dressed this is the 30s or 40s, but that's just a guess. All I know is that I have no idea who they are and they are definitely not relatives. It also looks like the girl is holding a roll of 12 6x9 shots, but it's hard to be certain. I have no idea what this was for, but it's kind of amusing, so I thought I'd share.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Interesting. A roll of 6x9 has 8 shots, and 220, if it existed at the time of this photo, would have 16 shots. They don't look square, so it's not 6x6, and 6x7 (which also may not have existed yet) would have 10 shots on a 120 roll.

So is this 3x4" rollfilm?

The enlarger looks like it could be a Federal or some such. That's a contact proofer in the middle of the frame behind the girl with the negs.

 

[Moopheus]

So is this 3x4" rollfilm?

The print image is 3x4.5"--maybe a contact from the same film?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The format size would be 3.25x4.25", so I think an untrimmed contact print would be a little more squarish.

3x4.5" could be an exact enlargement from 6x9cm.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I was sorting through a box of old family photos, and came across this print of two kids in a darkroom. I'm guessing from the gear shown and the way the kids are dressed this is the 30s or 40s, but that's just a guess. All I know is that I have no idea who they are and they are definitely not relatives. It also looks like the girl is holding a roll of 12 6x9 shots, but it's hard to be certain. I have no idea what this was for, but it's kind of amusing, so I thought I'd share.

Speaking of how they're dressed - I've got an old 'Popular Mechanics' how-to book set of my father's (1950s vintage) and over the years, I've made a few of the gadgets in them just for grins. Never have I considered wearing a suit, though <grin>.

The men they have demonstrating the way to run a wood lathe and other machinery of that sort are wearing ties! That's the best way I know of to get dragged into machinery and get a rather varied collection of knots on your head, if not worse. I guess the girl's dress is a suitable substitute for an apron.

Most of these 'demonstration' type photos are like that from that era.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Interesting photo. I was baffled about the rollfilm as well, but after a little bit of observation, I am more under the impression that this is good old 120, 12 exposures of 6x6, and the rectangular shape of some of the images is just an effect of perspective.

Have a look at these upsized snips from either hand of the girl. On the first one, the negative frame looks pretty square, and the film's plane is parallel to the camera's.

On the second one, the picture looks rectangular, and the film is slightly angled away.

If the negative for this photo is available, a higher resolution scan would certainly yield more useful information.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Another version of the first hand holding the negative, with markers to indicate the boundaries of the exposed area. Looks square to me.

 

[ic-racer]

Good pickup on the square frames. I agree. Other similar films that this might be are 116 and 620.

 

[MattKing]

I'm thinking that this looks wider than 120/620. I would bet on something like 116/616.

Matt

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Dressed to print?

I'm no expert, but those clothes the kids are wearing look more 1950's-ish. And is that an old Solar enlarger in the background, behind the boy?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm thinking that this looks wider than 120/620. I would bet on something like 116/616.

Matt

I was wondering the same thing, but then a young girl's hand is also rather small.

I wish my CSI-like powers of image analysis were stronger; we could deduce the scale of her hands using the known dimensions of an object and extrapolating hence.

 

[srs5694]

The film is definitely a 12-exposure roll; it's easy enough to count the individual frames. If it's 120 film, then that makes them 6x6 exposures. That can be used as a scale. The girl appears to be about 1.5 times as high as the roll of film, which would make her 108cm (3 feet 7 inches) high.

 

[ic-racer]

I was wondering the same thing, but then a young girl's hand is also rather small.

I wish my CSI-like powers of image analysis were stronger; we could deduce the scale of her hands using the known dimensions of an object and extrapolating hence.

The link below is excellent reading for those interested in deductive or forensic analog photography. I suspect that detailed analysis is the most extensive ever in the analog era (though they did digitize the negative for a primitive digital test).

I especially love the stereoscopic analysis of the background in the two photographs. Very clever and perhaps the most compelling evidence of the whole analysis.

Definitive report on the analysis of the Lee H Oswald backyard photographs
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

 

[MattKing]

I was wondering the same thing, but then a young girl's hand is also rather small.

I wish my CSI-like powers of image analysis were stronger; we could deduce the scale of her hands using the known dimensions of an object and extrapolating hence.

Michel:

I was going to PM mhv to tell him that someone had stolen his real name to use as an APUG screen name, but then I realized it was you .

I was thinking that that young girl was fairly tall, and might actually have fairly long hands.

Matt

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Matt: I just decided to assume a little bit more my own self!