Someone here remembers 1995

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe that's why 35mm made such a push from the late 1950s until APS (also with no backing) came out? Of course, there were still 126 and 110 with backing inside the cartridges, but they were (mostly) consumer films (yes, I remember having a roll of Tri-X in 126, once), and by the mid-1960s perhaps a little less likely to get three Christmases on a single roll...

 

[laingsoft]

I don't remember much of 1995. I was born halfway through so everything before that seems a little distant.

 

[Cholentpot]

Maybe that's why 35mm made such a push from the late 1950s until APS (also with no backing) came out? Of course, there were still 126 and 110 with backing inside the cartridges, but they were (mostly) consumer films (yes, I remember having a roll of Tri-X in 126, once), and by the mid-1960s perhaps a little less likely to get three Christmases on a single roll...

Was 126 that bad? I'm archiving the family negatives from the late 40's through the 90's and there's quite a bit of 126 in there. The only shortcoming is the lack of decent consumer cameras as far as the negatives show. Then again, either the shots are outdoors in full light or blasted with flashbulbs. From what I've been through, the 127 is by far the worst for some reason, I'm getting better shots and scans off the 110.

 

[MattKing]

126 and 110 were, of course, had each end fixed in a separate part of a cartridge, so may very well not have been as tightly wound as 120 (or 127, or 828).

 

[Down Under]

.... it was also the year eBay was started..

Some of us want to forget this.

Ebay - the monster that can never be destroyed.

 

[cmacd123]

by then I had moved to my current house, and was planning how to build a darkroom. the mini-lab at Walmart was on the way home from work, and they would delelop a roll of C-41 and make 2 sets of prints for 12 bucks. (and yes, sleeve the negatives carefully), how the world had changed in the last while.

of course once I built the darkroom, my memories of the world sharply shifted to Black and White.

 

[removed account4]

also a year I ran out of money and had to decide whether I would continue to pay for health insurance or rent / food,
I ended up getting a job that paid for health insurance and 2x minimum wage, ... schlepping coffee . it was a great decision working for a great company. aside helping people with their caffeine addiction, I managed to figure out a way to donate all the excess food we had (daily) to an organization that fed people who needed food.

Some of us want to forget this.

Ebay - the monster that can never be destroyed.

really ?
A monster ? It’s just a flea market .. usually flea markets charge for a table…

 

[Donald Qualls]

Was 126 that bad?

126 and 110 were, of course, had each end fixed in a separate part of a cartridge, so may very well not have been as tightly wound as 120 (or 127, or 828).

I don't recall ever seeing wrapper offset in 126 -- back then, I figured it was because the cartridge protected against print-through by light (of course, that isn't the mechanism, but it made sense based on what I thought I knew then). Yeah, 127 was probably worst, though 828 was likely about the same -- my family never had an 828 camera (in fact, I didn't know about 828 until I came back to photography in the early 2000s), but 127 was another format that was almost all consumer film, and one that was likely to spend years in the camera.

 

[reddesert]

I've posted a couple of times about having a small stash of Ilford FP4 and HP5+ from the mid-late 1990s that I bought new when it was rebadged by Freestyle as Arista ( I think Arista Premium), eg https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-wrapping-marks-on-negative.177516/#post-2312971 It's been stored in sealed foil wrappers, often in the fridge, sometimes out.

I exposed some of this back in the late 90s and there wasn't any paper wrapper offset (marks from backing paper). Recently, I have exposed and developed some more of it and the HP5 has had a faint wrapper offset, but a few rolls of FP4 have had a fairly obtrusive wrapper offset, so I don't think I can use it for anything more than tests at this point.

So, the OP's experience seems normal to me. Back in the 90s I had never head of wrapper offset. But leaving films around for 25 years, especially at room temp, stuff like this may happen.

 

[Huss]

Well, Google says Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated, the OKC bombing killed a lot of folks (on 9/11/95), and O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his ex-wife.

Yeah, but apart from that.

 

[Huss]

The year of the Bronco

lol

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I had two Nikkormat ELs with me and shot a lot of color neg film. Mostly happy-crappy snaps as my brain was working elsewhere, I've now destroyed almost all those images.

It is a pity you destroyed the negatives. With the passage of a quarter century, your happy snaps might show common life and scenes that are gone forever. Time often makes regular scenes quite interesting.

 

[fdonadio]

Maybe not that important, but 1995 is the year I turned 18.

 

[fdonadio]

we still used NetScape

Oh, 1995 was the year the internet became available to the general public in Brazil. Before that, only higher-ed institutions could get access (and it sucked).

 

[Down Under]

It is a pity you destroyed the negatives. With the passage of a quarter century, your happy snaps might show common life and scenes that are gone forever. Time often makes regular scenes quite interesting.

Ah, but I have the scans. When I bought my Plustek 7600i I set to work scanning as many old color negative rolls as I could. 3200 dpi scanned as TIFFs. Endless time was eaten up but I did a lot of other tasks (mostly house chores) while the scans were being done, so not lost. My C41 rolls were all processed by a prolab in Indonesia that did things on the cheap, so these have faded. Fortunately, I did the scanning work in time to save the best of those old images.

So all is not lost. In fact a lot of what I shouldn't have bothered saving, also got scanned and saved. Such is life.

All my B&W rolls and color slides of Asia go back to my first Bali visit in 1970.. I have faithfully kept all those under as archival a storage system as I could. The slides show a small amount of color shift but no fading. The B&Ws are perfect, but then I processed all those myself. Nice to know I did at least one thing right in my (photographic) life...

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Backing paper transfer: I do not see it yet on 120 Kodak Panatomic-X from 1989 and 1990. It has been in my freezer continuously all these years and not subject to thawing and refreezing. All is well, so far. Only 12 rolls left.

 

[Europan]

Handed back the keys of a little basement cinema to the owners in the summer of 1995. The place had 62 tip-up seats, a pair of Frieseke & Hoepfner 66, and two 16-mm. projectors. It was difficult to find decent prints of Hello, Dolly! or Aelita that I played there. One or two premières were possible, a documentary I remember about autists. A local confectioner had made little marzipan Sputniks, tinted red, for the guests. Kino Sputnik

 

[faberryman]

I don't recall ever seeing wrapper offset in 126 -- back then, I figured it was because the cartridge protected against print-through by light (of course, that isn't the mechanism, but it made sense based on what I thought I knew then). Yeah, 127 was probably worst, though 828 was likely about the same -- my family never had an 828 camera (in fact, I didn't know about 828 until I came back to photography in the early 2000s), but 127 was another format that was almost all consumer film, and one that was likely to spend years in the camera.

I was given an 828 camera in the early 1970s by a relative. I think it was a Kodak Bantam. I remember I had to order the film from NYC. Eight exposures to the roll. I shot a few rolls and let's just say they were disappointing. Perhaps if they had invented lomography earlier they would have been great. Maybe I was just ahead of my time.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have a Bantam RF and have shot it with film cut down from 120 with very good results (sadly, the shutter is sticky now, I'll need to open it up and clean it when I have time). The RF is accurate and the lens is a nice triplet. Some of the Bantams were cheap cameras, some (like the Bantam Special) were excellent. The film was never at fault (any more than 620, 120, or 127 would be) -- but it's worth recalling that some of the cameras could and some couldn't work without the one-per-frame perforations.

 

[faberryman]

If yours had a rangefinder, it was a Kodak Bantam Special. My Kodak Bantam was the pedestrian version that only had a little viewfinder on top, so you had to guess the distance.

 

[Donald Qualls]

No, mine is a Bantam RF. Says so right on the front plate. Not a folder, it's a Bakelite body, similar to a Pony 828 only with coupled RF. The Bantam Special was an Art Deco folder. You might have had a Kodak Bantam 4.5 or Bantam Colorsnap (this last was a UK model). There were a couple other companies that made 828 cameras, and at least one other format that had the same (or nearly so) spools but was numbered for square frames (and used in incredibly cheap junk cameras, for the most part).

 

[MattKing]

This is from a Bantam RF - I have this and thousands more Kodachrome slides taken by my Dad during and before my youth.
He used it until 828 Kodachrome went away.
I'm the little guy with the brown jacket.
And I expect Dad used a self timer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For folks used to 127, 120/620, and larger roll film formats (which was most consumer photographers prior to 1960) 828 was a lot more familiar item than 135. Loading was obvious (if you'd ever loaded a roll film camera) unlike 135 with its sprockets, rewind, and so forth. And the frame size was about 30% larger area than the "double frame" -- in fact, it was almost the same size as half-frame 127, with the early 828 folding cameras even smaller than a Vest Pocket 127.

 

[MattKing]

The other nice thing about 828 is that the aspect ratio is very close to being the same as whole plate, 6x4.5, 110 and, dare I say it, 4/3 or micro 4/3.

 

[Huss]

This is from a Bantam RF - I have this and thousands more Kodachrome slides taken by my Dad during and before my youth.
He used it until 828 Kodachrome went away.
I'm the little guy with the brown jacket.
And I expect Dad used a self timer.
View attachment 283102

Man I love stuff like this. Thanks for posting!