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...
.... it was also the year eBay was started..
Some of us want to forget this.
Ebay - the monster that can never be destroyed.
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).
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.
lolThe year of the Bronco
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.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.
we still used NetScape
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.
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.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.
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
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?