Photos from Yokohama in 1935 on Kodak nitrate 35mm film

[AndrewAust]

Hello
My father was in Japan from late 1945 to March 1946, during which time he was stationed for several weeks at the British Consulate as a guard. He wrote many letters back home about the conditions there but didn't have a camera; he bought photos from others.
Among his various personal items I found two rolls of Eastman Kodak 35mm nitrate film with the code + and box, indicating the film was made in Rochester in 1935. The two rolls (a) document the annual Yokohama parade (see example) and (b) a family that probably lived in Yokohama and attended the parade (see example), as their daughter appears in two photos of the parade among a group of Japanese women and children.
At first I thought my father had taken these photos but then realised he couldn't have as they were probably taken in 1935 or 1936 and before 1939. Extensive research has failed to locate the source of these photos, although there is a chance they were taken by one uncle who worked on ships (but this seems very unlikely). The curious thing is that these photos were never printed and my father left no clues as to their origin. It seems a strange coincidence that they were taken in the location where he served 10 years later.
Local research with a Japanese historian based in Yokohama has confirmed they were taken before the war (there are various clues in the photos of the parade).
And, just to add to this mystery, the negatives are stored in an pre-war AGFA film aluminium canister.
Any thoughts on how to find how who may have taken these photos?
Andrew

 

[mshchem]

I did a quick Google, the perforations look like Bell and Howell not Kodak Standard. Nitrate seems more likely in movie film. Someone, as I'm sure many, if not most, loading still cameras with movie film??
Amazing pictures. Look at all the children

 

[AndrewAust]

Thanks. These are definitely 35mm nitrate-based negatives and appear to be standard rolls that start with the loading 'tongue'. Here is the full negative of the photo that has the Kodak codes on it. You can also see other numbers at the top, not sure if these are manufacturing or processing codes. Happy to provide more details if it may help.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks. These are definitely 35mm nitrate-based negatives and appear to be standard rolls that start with the loading 'tongue'. Here is the full negative of the photo that has the Kodak codes on it. You can also see other numbers at the top, not sure if these are manufacturing or processing codes. Happy to provide more details if it may help.

The Leica and similar cameras sold guides for cutting a perfect "tongue" onto the bulk film. Google, film perforations, no doubt this is a Kodak nitrate negative film, Kodak could supply different perforations.
I'm sure someone knows more than I about this.

 

[AgX]

Films converted by film manufacturers to 35mm still film for type 135 cassettes showed B&H perforations too.

The question is whether Kodak did so too.


From a manufacturer as Kodak one could expect to stamp-cut the leader in a way that no perforation is hit, not even slightly.

 

[AndrewAust]

Just realised, the parade photos have a different Kodak code with a circle, indicating 1936. Still the same nitrate film with the 'tongue' lead in.

 

[davela]

Maybe he got these from someone at the British Consulate. The photos of the seated people seem to be Westerners in 1930's era garb. Perhaps someone working in the Consulate, possibly a diplomat returned post war to a posting and was aware of the unprocessed film for some reason (perhaps he was in Japan pre-war), or maybe even a British citizen recently released from internment, offered them up to your father. They may have given them to your father since he was interested in photos of Japan, or perhaps they requested he find a way to process them. Just some speculations.

Researching the pre- and post-war history of that consulate might offer some insight or help identify the individuals in the images.

 

[mshchem]

The tongue looks like the "Leica style" longer and narrow compared to today. The other edge marking looks like F 24982 ? This is quite interesting. Could it be so simple that your father was shooting outdated movie film?? Although it definitely looks pre-war in terms of prosperous and no damage. I don't know.

 

[AndrewAust]

The tongue looks like the "Leica style" longer and narrow compared to today. The other edge marking looks like F 24982 ? This is quite interesting. Could it be so simple that your father was shooting outdated movie film?? Although it definitely looks pre-war in terms of prosperous and no damage. I don't know.

The edge marking, which I suspect was when it was processed, is 22E F24982. Potentially this might tell us where it was processed but I think that's a long shot. My father didn't have a camera, in his letters he states this many times and that he bought photos (not negatives) from other members of the military stationed there (as they were setting up the occupation). It is not impossible that he bought these two rolls from someone there, but I'm curious why they were never printed and placed in the album with all the others. He makes no mention of being friendly with the Consul or a family, but he does mention the others he was friendly with. I suspect these two rolls were completely forgotten.

 

[AndrewAust]

Maybe he got these from someone at the British Consulate. The photos of the seated people seem to be Westerners in 1930's era garb. Perhaps someone working in the Consulate, possibly a diplomat returned post war to a posting and was aware of the unprocessed film for some reason (perhaps he was in Japan pre-war), or maybe even a British citizen recently released from internment, offered them up to your father. They may have given them to your father since he was interested in photos of Japan, or perhaps they requested he find a way to process them. Just some speculations.

Researching the pre- and post-war history of that consulate might offer some insight or help identify the individuals in the images.

Thank you. They are definitely westerners in the second roll and appear to be at home in a very spacious home with a large garden (documented in the photos). Unfortunately we've not yet been able to match the building to the old British consulate's residence (it was not the consulate, which is now a museum - which is ironically helping me with the research).
The photos are definitely pre-war and apparently 'rare' (according to the Yokohama archives). So I think I'm looking for someone who was living in or visited Yokohama, very likely connected with the westerner. For various reasons (from the photos), it may have been a visitor or friend whose partner/wife is the other younger woman.

 

[mshchem]

Very interesting piece of history. Looking forward to more information. Thanks for sharing.

 

[mshchem]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Here's an interesting link regarding the introduction of the 135 size by Kodak in 1934. This goes into the perforations a bit. Apparently 35mm movie camera films continued to use BH perforations where the still camera and movie print films used the Kodak standard perforations. I would be curious if Kodak ever sold a nitrate base pre-loaded 135 cassette???

 

[AndrewAust]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Here's an interesting link regarding the introduction of the 135 size by Kodak in 1934. This goes into the perforations a bit. Apparently 35mm movie camera films continued to use BH perforations where the still camera and movie print films used the Kodak standard perforations. I would be curious if Kodak ever sold a nitrate base pre-loaded 135 cassette???

Thank you, that was a very interesting read as you say. As these negatives are Eastman Kodak Panchromatic film and have date stamps of 1935 and 1936 respectively, this statement from the link would appear to confirm they were Kodak standard perforations: 'The term 135 was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for 35 mm film specifically for still photography, perforated with Kodak Standard perforations.'

The article also note that the cassette could be used in the Kodak Retina, Leica and Zeiss Ikon Contax cameras, suggesting that the photograph had one of these. Do the negatives have any physical indication that the film was used in any one of these cameras?

And yes, I agree, good question as to whether Kodak sold a nitrate base pre-loaded 135 cassette. It seems a bit dangerous.

 

[mshchem]

Thank you, that was a very interesting read as you say. As these negatives are Eastman Kodak Panchromatic film and have date stamps of 1935 and 1936 respectively, this statement from the link would appear to confirm they were Kodak standard perforations: 'The term 135 was introduced by Kodak in 1934 as a designation for 35 mm film specifically for still photography, perforated with Kodak Standard perforations.'

The article also note that the cassette could be used in the Kodak Retina, Leica and Zeiss Ikon Contax cameras, suggesting that the photograph had one of these. Do the negatives have any physical indication that the film was used in any one of these cameras?

And yes, I agree, good question as to whether Kodak sold a nitrate base pre-loaded 135 cassette. It seems a bit dangerous.

Look at the perforations on your film. To my eyes your negatives have the BH perforations consistent with movie camera negative films.

 

[mshchem]

Here's where I found the illustration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations

 

[AgX]

Look at the perforations on your film. To my eyes your negatives have the BH perforations consistent with movie camera negative films.

See my comment above.

 

[AgX]

And yes, I agree, good question as to whether Kodak sold a nitrate base pre-loaded 135 cassette. It seems a bit dangerous.

The fire hazard of nitrate base films in first instance was related to large stocks, even combined with a strong heat source.

That is why still films were the last to have their base substituted. In Europe even later than in the USA.

 

[mshchem]

I found my 1938 Kodak Limited (UK) Dealer Catalogue, there are 5 films offered in 135 pre-loaded cassettes. 4 different panchromatic black and white films in 36 exposure pre-loaded 135 cassettes and pre cut 36 exposure unspooled lengths for loading Leica or other cassettes. Kodachrome is offered in 18 exposure only.

The black and white films 3 shillings 6 pence, the unspooled length for a Leica cassette was 2 shillings. 18 exposure Kodachrome with processing was 12 / 6 !

 

[AndrewAust]

I found my 1938 Kodak Limited (UK) Dealer Catalogue, there are 5 films offered in 135 pre-loaded cassettes. 4 different panchromatic black and white films in 36 exposure pre-loaded 135 cassettes and pre cut 36 exposure unspooled lengths for loading Leica or other cassettes. Kodachrome is offered in 18 exposure only.

The black and white films 3 shillings 6 pence, the unspooled length for a Leica cassette was 2 shillings. 18 exposure Kodachrome with processing was 12 / 6 !

Thank you - this has been an invaluable help.

 

[AndrewAust]

Look at the perforations on your film. To my eyes your negatives have the BH perforations consistent with movie camera negative films.

The perforations in my negatives are 'upright' as shown in the image - does the image reflect the direction the film would travel? That is, in a movie camera roll, would the rounded edges be sideways along the edge of the film, as shown in the diagram, or as they appear in my negatives?

 

[mshchem]

The perforations in my negatives are 'upright' as shown in the image - does the image reflect the direction the film would travel? That is, in a movie camera roll, would the rounded edges be sideways along the edge of the film, as shown in the diagram, or as they appear in my negatives?

In a movie camera the image would be smaller and at a 90° to that of a still camera. The perforations would look similar in orientation, but for the very subtle difference in the BH vs Kodak standard. Obviously still film travels left to right, horizontal, in the camera, while movie film travels vertically. The perforation orientation doesn't change.

 

[AndrewAust]

In a movie camera the image would be smaller and at a 90° to that of a still camera. The perforations would look similar in orientation, but for the very subtle difference in the BH vs Kodak standard. Obviously still film travels left to right, horizontal, in the camera, while movie film travels vertically. The perforation orientation doesn't change.

Thank you for the quick reply. So, just to make sure I get this right, the perforations remain the same, with the rounded parts on the 'outside' and 'inside' (nearest the actual image), they just travel vertically rather than horizontally?
The other thing I was curious about was (based on the Wikipedia info), the Kodak KS perforations started in 1920 but the BH version was more popular and remained dominant. Does this mean that Kodak made film for its 135 cassettes using the BH perforations, perhaps to ensure that other cameras could use them?

 

[mshchem]

Thank you for the quick reply. So, just to make sure I get this right, the perforations remain the same, with the rounded parts on the 'outside' and 'inside' (nearest the actual image), they just travel vertically rather than horizontally?
The other thing I was curious about was (based on the Wikipedia info), the Kodak KS perforations started in 1920 but the BH version was more popular and remained dominant. Does this mean that Kodak made film for its 135 cassettes using the BH perforations, perhaps to ensure that other cameras could use them?

Kodak made and I think still makes cine CAMERA films using the BH perforations. The cinema films for projection have Kodak standard perforations, and all Kodak still films have always been the Kodak standard.
My suspicion is that your father may have simply came upon these negatives or was given them by a friend. To my eye this was loaded into cassettes from "short ends" of movie camera film. This was smart, economical way to shoot 35mm. I hope this helps.

 

[AndrewAust]

Kodak made and I think still makes cine CAMERA films using the BH perforations. The cinema films for projection have Kodak standard perforations, and all Kodak still films have always been the Kodak standard.
My suspicion is that your father may have simply came upon these negatives or was given them by a friend. To my eye this was loaded into cassettes from "short ends" of movie camera film. This was smart, economical way to shoot 35mm. I hope this helps.

Thanks again for the clarification.
I have just realised I didn't update my post with more information about the origin of the negatives. I now know (from a sentence in my dad's life story) that he found these negatives while working in the British Consulate in Yokohama in December 1945 and decided to keep them since no-one else wanted them. The Consulate building was closed in around 1940; when it was re-opened in August/September 1945 it was initially used by British occupation military forces, and was a bit of a mess by the time my dad worked there (he described it has 'buggy' and in need of a good clean up). It appears the negatives belonged to the Consul-General who retired in 1936 or his successor (the last one there before they evacuated). We've been able to track down the likely location of the family photos (the then British Consul-General's house until the new one was opened in 1939).
Given that they were likely taken by the British Consul-General (or with his camera), I think it's highly likely he was issued with a camera and possibly also the film rolls - whatever their origin. It might be relevant here that a dozen British citizens were rounded up by the Japanese police in 1940 accused of spying. Perhaps they were taking a few too many photos ...