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.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 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.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 Could it be so simple that your father was shooting outdated movie film??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.
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).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.
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???
Look at the perforations on your film. To my eyes your negatives have the BH perforations consistent with movie camera negative films.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.
See my comment above.Look at the perforations on your film. To my eyes your negatives have the BH perforations consistent with movie camera negative films.
And yes, I agree, good question as to whether Kodak sold a nitrate base pre-loaded 135 cassette. It seems a bit dangerous.
Thank you - this has been an invaluable help.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 !
Look at the perforations on your film. To my eyes your negatives have the BH perforations consistent with movie camera negative films.
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.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?
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?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.
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.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?
Thanks again for the clarification.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?