Using older cameras

[srobb_photo]

I had read through some of the older threads and ran across one where some of the folks were talking about using some of their older cameras. Even the old box cameras. What I would like to know is; how do the images come out?

The reason I ask is that I have a few old ones myself. I have a Brownie No.2 by Kodak. I just looked at it and the others. I am not sure about using it since the glass did not look in very good shape.

I do have another box camera. This one has Marvel S-20 on the leather handle on top. It also has a viewing glass on top in the left front corner looking from the rear. On the right side is the winding knob for the film spool, another window in the top front corner next to the knob. Below the window are two levers; a small one marked "bulb" and a larger one marked "shutter".
On the front are three openings. Two small ones at the top which I would say are for the viewing windows. The larger opening would be the lens and it has a moveable, black ring and a graduated series of marks all around it.

Open the rear cover and you have the patent numbers on the inside part of the cover. There is also a pull out box where you would load the film. My question would be is it worth trying to run film through it?


Then I have a Kodak Duraflex II twin lens reflex camera. I actually have two of them, but I would only consider the one to be film worthy. My only question on this one would be what do I need to do to it to get it ready. The glass seems to be in good shape, but in need of some good cleaning. Is this something I can do myself, or do I need a pro to do it? I would love to be able to use this old camera if I can.

 

[DBP]

Most of the older cameras are pretty easy to work on, especially if all you need to do is clean them. Definitely do this one yourself, getting a pro to even think about cleaning it will cost several times what the cameras are worth. I believe the Duaflex is a pseudo TLR, really just a jazzed up box camera. You may need to respool 120 onto 620 spools, or buy some 620 for it. I'd try the Brownie first, with some really slow film, maybe even ortho.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Unless one is attempting to make very large enlargements, you might be surprised about what an older camera is capable of.

For example - I was putting around with a Kodak Brownie (6x9) which used 620 roll-film (I modified it to take 120), a miniscus lens (no focusing) and no control over shutter speed or aperture. I happened to have it in my car when I spotted a house on fire, with the local fire department putting out the flames. Very dramatic.

I stopped my car and shot the roll, which I processed at home and scanned on my flat-bed scanner. I emailed the resulting negs to the local paper, and they printed one of them. Probably the first time a Brownie had been used for reportage in 50 years:

http://www.growlery.com/images/fire_brownie_003a.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/fire_brownie_004a.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/fire_brownie_005a.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/fire_brownie_006a.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/fire_brownie_007a.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/fire_brownie_008a.jpg

By the way, the fire, as it turned out, was a training fire. The house had been owned by the city for back taxes for decades, sat abandoned, and was being used as a crack house, so they emptied it and torched it. I didn't know that at the time, so the newspaper thought it was more interesting that I had used a Brownie than that I had submitted photos of a fire.

Here are some more examples, taken from a 6x6 Brownie Hawkeye:

http://www.growlery.com/images/brownie_01_09_2004_10.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/brownie_01_09_2004_22.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/brownie_01_09_2004_25.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/brownie_01_09_2004_27.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/images/brownie_01_09_2004_28.jpg

Here's the camera that took them:

http://www.growlery.com/images/brownie_camera.jpg

I feel that the photos rendered by such primitive cameras have a unique character to them that, while it may not be up to today's standards of sharpness and high contrast, are certainly interesting for the effect they achieve. And they're fun. That counts too.

 

[JBrunner]

Very cool Wiggy.

Here is a test shot I snapped with a 1930's era Ansco Shureshot Box camera. It takes 120 film. The 120 format has been around a long time and with a little looking you can find old box cameras that take 120 without respooling or modification. A few cameras will also shoot 620 or 120 spool interchangably.
It isn't the sharpest thing in the world, but with a 6x8 neg it doesn't need to be, and has nice soft edges without fall off.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, folks, why handicap yourself with a crappy old camera when you can get better results with a good old camera? If, that is, you have it with you ready to use when you need it. Being there is a prerequisite ...

I ask because I shoot all sorts of lenses, some made before WWI, on 2x3 Graphics made before 1950. I b'lieve I can do more with my Graphics than I could with a box camera.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[JBrunner]

Um, folks, why handicap yourself with a crappy old camera when you can get better results with a good old camera? If, that is, you have it with you ready to use when you need it. Being there is a prerequisite ...

I ask because I shoot all sorts of lenses, some made before WWI, on 2x3 Graphics made before 1950. I b'lieve I can do more with my Graphics than I could with a box camera.

Cheers,

Dan

It's fun to play with crappy old 8 buck cameras. I didn't know about the contest.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dan,

I do rather agree. It can be interesting to try old, cheap cameras, but it's very disappointing when you get a picture that would have been really good if you'd used a better camera. I almost never bother with box cameras and quite honestly I've found very few folders that I was too keen on either.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[JBrunner]

Dear Dan,

I do rather agree. It can be interesting to try old, cheap cameras, but it's very disappointing when you get a picture that would have been really good if you'd used a better camera. I almost never bother with box cameras and quite honestly I've found very few folders that I was too keen on either.

Cheers,

Roger

Ok I'll clarify a bit. I have a collection of junky old folders and box cameras. I don't use them when it matters. These days I shoot 8x10 when it matters, which is fine for the work I'm doing. It is a fun break to put a roll in one of the crappy cameras and go out in the yard and see if I can make it work. Every little thing I do with a camera doesn't have to aspire to be some masterpiece. That would ruin it for me. Kind of like Holga, but even more random.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ok I'll clarify a bit. I have a collection of junky old folders and box cameras. I don't use them when it matters. These days I shoot 8x10 when it matters, which is fine for the work I'm doing. It is a fun break to put a roll in one of the crappy cameras and go out in the yard and see if I can make it work. Every little thing I do with a camera doesn't have to aspire to be some masterpiece. That would ruin it for me. Kind of like Holga, but even more random.

Fair do's. Then again I'm no Holga fan either. It's all opinion. Whatever turns you on!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[pandino]

I had read through some of the older threads and ran across one where some of the folks were talking about using some of their older cameras. Even the old box cameras. What I would like to know is; how do the images come out?

I have about 50 "old" cameras and each has its own character and charm, or lack thereof. Several have given results that meet or exceed the results I've achieved with the best of Nikon's 35mm lenses. My oldies are in the formats 110, half frame 35mm, 35mm, 4x4, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 among others. A good photographer can make a masterpiece from a $5 camera just as easily as a snapshooter can take a crappy photo with an 8x10 Ebony. Sharpness isn't everything. I've seen a number of professionals proudly state that they took their published photo(s) with a camera such as these.

Open the rear cover and you have the patent numbers on the inside part of the cover. There is also a pull out box where you would load the film. My question would be is it worth trying to run film through it?

If it's patented, the camera must be good. You may not get stellar results with your cameras, but it's a lot of (inexpensive) fun getting pictures out of these old contraptions.

Then I have a Kodak Duraflex II twin lens reflex camera. I actually have two of them, but I would only consider the one to be film worthy. My only question on this one would be what do I need to do to it to get it ready. The glass seems to be in good shape, but in need of some good cleaning. Is this something I can do myself, or do I need a pro to do it? I would love to be able to use this old camera if I can.

I don't have a Duaflex, so I can't address it specifically, but some cameras designed for 620 will readily accept 120 spools. If you want help getting these things going, there are several folks on nelsonfoto.com that take a lighter approach to photography and they can answer all of your questions. Go to the Classics forum. A great bunch of people, many of whom cross-pollinate with APUG, RFF, and other sites.

Load some film and have fun with them!

 

[removed account4]

i have a good time shooting
my sears delmar box camera ( takes 4x5 film/plates )

i have 2 of them, and took the meniscus lens off of one of them and use it on my speed graphic - and on my enlarger

i used to buy, fix and use ( later sell ) falling plate cameras too. some were pretty sophisticated with variable shutter speeds &C. they usually took odd size plates ( i used paper with a piece of cardborad behind ) ... i still have a "cyclone sr" that i mean to fix up and use, but don't really have the time to have THAT much fun these days ...

 

[Ole]

With the possible exception of the Balda Belfoca (which I'm still trying to clean, by the way), none of my old cameras can be described as "crappy". Most of them were in fact pretty much "top of the line" in their day, and some (like the 6.5x9cm Bergheil - professionals used 13x18cm) were perhaps more akin to a "rich man's toy".

All of these old cameras work excactly as they shold, just like they did when they were new...

 

[athanasius80]

I'd say just try the cameras out for the fun of it. I've cleaned a couple No. 2 Brownies using a Qtip saturated with Windex. The Marvel is a Sears Roebuck box camera, I don't know it, but it should be very similar to a Kodak or Ansco. Get some cheap 120 film and try them out, you might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[jamie young]

With almost all my commercial work being digital, I find myself more and moe interested in the old cameras. It feels good to get away from the computer screen, along with trying out all the old cameras. I like the process of shooting with the old cameras. It's a more thoughtful interaction to the subject, as opposed to the instant digital capture. The old cameras have their own unique view, and the "flaws" can be a interesting addition to the shot. If I want a technically "clean image" I might as well do digital, but it's fun going out with my cirkuts and 1900's swing lense cameras and seeing what I get.
I'm planning on shooting with a plate box camera this week myself just to see what I get. When I go out with my #16 Cirkut and shoot with the 36" element, even stopping down to F90 doesn't get a lot in focus, and the look to the print shows it. It's fun to try to make a 16" by 7-10 foot negative (and hard work too). Having photography be more than the end result (oblviously important), but also a fun process, is important to me. And judging from the prices on some of the old equipment that was virtually worthless a few years ago, I'm far from the only one.
Jamie Young

 

[Lachlan Young]

Um, folks, why handicap yourself with a crappy old camera when you can get better results with a good old camera? If, that is, you have it with you ready to use when you need it. Being there is a prerequisite ...

I ask because I shoot all sorts of lenses, some made before WWI, on 2x3 Graphics made before 1950. I b'lieve I can do more with my Graphics than I could with a box camera.

Cheers,

Dan

Hear Hear!

(just about to begin second Graphic hunt... )

Lachlan

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

An ex-girlfriend got me started in old cameras by giving me a Kodak Duaflex. It looks sort of cool, and I thought at first I would just use it as a prop for an upcoming advertising shoot. After that, I decided to try it out with film, and ordered some 620 spooled TriX from B&H. Unfortunately, the film is still in the camera after a few years, with one more frame left to shoot. It really only has one shutter speed, and one aperture, but it got me going in another direction.

That other direction was old folder cameras, like AGFA/Ansco models of various years. The first one I got was not that great, but after a quick test using Fuji NPH I was hooked. That got me doing a complete functional restoration, including finding a source for several replacement bellows. Then I discovered that a spread in CITY magazine was shot using a very similar AGFA 6x9, which led to research showing a few past photographers had done some compelling work with similar gear.

A few holiday seasons ago, another girl gave me a gift of a 1937 AGFA Jsolette that can shoot 6x4.5 format. A quick restoration, then a find of a shutter with more speeds and a flash sync post, and I used it on a paid shoot. Absolutely stunned by the transparencies, I continue using that camera, and I have added a Präzisa clip-on rangefinder to help better guess the distances. Probably a little strange, but I now only shoot transparency films with that, though it helps that I have a very good Sekonic light meter.

To me, the appeal of the 6x4.5 and 6x9 folders is not so much the size of the film, but the compact size of the cameras. It is a shame there are no modern versions, though perhaps something will come out of China in the near future. I do know about the ALPA 12 line, but the prices are a bit too much for me to justify currently, and to be honest those are much bulkier and heavier than my AGFA 6x9. The other aspect is the somewhat soft look of the old lenses, which can give a very unique look to people images. It is the anti-thesis of the all too common sharp everywhere look currently in favour by some people.

Another odd aspect is that people often want to have their pictures taken with such old gear. They seem charmed by the process and that such an old camera is still in use and making nice looking images. I usually try to carry a tin with a few transparencies to show people some images. Some people will even make room for you to take a photo, since watching you with an old camera becomes a sort of performance art.

Technically, most of these suck in comparison to more modern gear. I think that misses the point that they are unique, and produce unique images. About the only wish of technical improvement I would like would be an easier way to fit filters onto the really small lenses. Anyway, I think the best reason for using old cameras is because they are fun.

Ciao!

Gordon

 

[John Bartley]

I had read through some of the older threads and ran across one where some of the folks were talking about using some of their older cameras. Even the old box cameras. What I would like to know is; how do the images come out? ......

In my opinion you should give your old cameras a try. I've tried three old ones now and they've been just fine. A roll of 120 B&W film is not too dear and if develop your own neg's, then it stays pretty cheap.

There's a lot of adventure in playing with old cameras. If you're not expecting perfection, you might get some surprisingly good results and have some fun to boot.

cheers

 

[Lachlan Young]

Another odd aspect is that people often want to have their pictures taken with such old gear. They seem charmed by the process and that such an old camera is still in use and making nice looking images. I usually try to carry a tin with a few transparencies to show people some images. Some people will even make room for you to take a photo, since watching you with an old camera becomes a sort of performance art.

A bit like the stunned silence that falls over the room when you pull out a Mamiya C330 with potato masher flashgun... followed up a day or so later by another stunned silence when you show them the prints.

Lachlan

 

[Donald Qualls]

I get that reaction when I pull out my 1927 Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera (ancestor of the Inos and Inos II) -- manually extended front standard, rather than self-erecting, dial-set Compur shutter, and gleamingly clean, though uncoated, Skopar. First it's "Is that a camera?" and then "Can you still get film for it?" and then "does it still work?" And in fact, its one of the best I own, possibly because it's easy to hand hold well, in addition to having an excellent lens and a shutter with a very, very smooth release.

If I want a bigger, better negative than that one, it's time to pull out the Speed Graphic and play Weegee...

The other direction, I have a Kodak Reflex II, with one of the best front focusing lenses ever made (possibly not up to the best lenses mounted on the Rolleiflex, but it's a lot cheaper than a Rolleiflex, at least now -- usually around $50), and a Kodak Signet 35 (the Ektar lens is in the same class with the ones that Leica used in the 1930s to prove 35 mm was a serious format, not just a "miniature" camera), and a Pentax Spotmatic which, with radioactive 50 mm f/1.4 Super Takumar, is capable of doing justice to the resoution of microfilm -- and is coming up hard on 40 years old.

And if I really want to reach back, I have my Ica 225 Ideal 9x12 cm plate camera made before the 1926 merger that formed Zeiss-Ikon. With 15 cm f/4.5 Tessar, it's capable of recording 95% as much information as my Speed Graphic -- and weighs about as much, by itself, as a couple old wooden 4x5 film holders.

The only cameras I own that were bought new are mildly crappy -- slow lenses, semi-accurate auto focus, etc. All my best cameras are old (most of them older than I am, and I'm not exactly fresh out of high school).

Of course, I've got a Bullseye, a Brownie Hawkeye, a Duaflex IV, a Pony 135 (actually a pretty good little camera, despite the bakelite body) and an Agfa Clack, too -- but I don't use them for serious images, I use them for fun. And that goes double for my Bantam RF -- 828 film is a labor of love in and of itself these days...

 

[Didzis]

Old cameras have a definite charm, I'd even suggest they have a personality. They are not brand-new, shiny snappers that look exactly the same like thousands of other cameras. They have their own history. For example, I have a Zenit EM I got from my late uncle, it is about as old as I am, it's my main camera, and it's also the camera most of my childhood pictures were taken with. Or my Stereo Realist came with a viewer and slides, which allowed taking a look at someone who (presumably) owned the camera before; an American middle-class couple from 1950-ies, their house, car, extended family, friends, work, and garden, all in vivid stereo Kodachrome. Another of my cameras is an old Lubitel (the original model), which I noticed in one home hanging from ceiling as a decoration. I asked if I could have it, and, sure enough, I could. I cleaned it, loaded it with film, went out, and made some pictures I really like, for example, the cat picture that I've attached. And that's probably the greatest thing about using old cameras. I mean, if I had not picked it up, the camera would probably still be hanging there until someone would toss it out when redecorating. Now it's still in use, taking nice pictures (well, at least as nice as my extremely limited photographic abilities allow). It still works, it allows to feel how people used to snap their pictures in 1950-ies -- indeed, it is a very real connection to the past. And at least I find it quite fascinating.

 

[Rich Silfver]

I had read through some of the older threads and ran across one where some of the folks were talking about using some of their older cameras. Even the old box cameras. What I would like to know is; how do the images come out?

I have a simply blog site aimed at my classic cameras. Photos of them - and the photos they take: http://silver.blogspot.com

 

[P C Headland]

Nothing wrong with using old cameras!

They are certainly a great way to get people talking, and not just from the people you'd expect. I've had loads of younger people and even kids fascinated with the cameras, along with the older folks who remember using them. I reckon I learned more Dutch while in Holland using my old camera than in normal day to day life!

Some of the old cameras are quite good, even now. Some were pretty crappy even when new ;-) I have a "selection" of mainly MF Folders, but also a TLR, MF SLR, 9x12cm, 5x4", plus a few 35mm cameras. I use them all, some more than others

If I'm taking just one camera with me, even for longer travels, it is always the Iskra (6x6 folder with coupled rangefinder). It is small enough to carry around all day, gives a decent sized negative and has a pretty good lens. I can't say I've ever been left disappointed by the camera itself.

Some days it's nice to also drag along something else, like a €7 Box Tengor camera.

Not every picture is about technical perfection.

So, go on, try using them. You may be pleasantly surprised.

The image of the statue was taken with the Iskra in Genoa using TriX 400 rated at EI1000 and dev'ed in Diafine. The cabbage trees were shot with the Box Tengor using Efke 25 and Rodinal.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The other direction, I have a Kodak Reflex II, with one of the best front focusing lenses ever made (possibly not up to the best lenses mounted on the Rolleiflex, but it's a lot cheaper than a Rolleiflex, at least now -- usually around $50), and a Kodak Signet 35 (the Ektar lens is in the same class with the ones that Leica used in the 1930s to prove 35 mm was a serious format, not just a "miniature" camera), and a Pentax Spotmatic which, with radioactive 50 mm f/1.4 Super Takumar, is capable of doing justice to the resoution of microfilm -- and is coming up hard on 40 years old.

I think you've just given me another bout of GAS .Were Pentax or any of the other 'majors' to make the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 screw mount today they would have to sell them at $1500 each just to cover costs...

Lachlan (playing weegee in avatar)

 

[DBP]

A bit like the stunned silence that falls over the room when you pull out a Mamiya C330 with potato masher flashgun...

And that reaction pales in comparison to a bunch of teens and twenty-somethings having their first encounter with a #5 flashbulb going off.

 

[Jim Noel]

Wggy,

You have proved once again that it is not the camera, it is the photographer.

Good job.

Jim