Using the lovely Kodak Six-16

[summicron1]

I recently returned my dad's 1932 Kodak Six-16 to use. Rather than fill out this whole thing I'll just post a link to the blog I did.

Short answer-- it's a really lovely camera capable of excellent work within its limitations. If you have one sitting around I strongly urge you to give it a whirl. Spacers to use 120 film cost about $10. That and trim the 120 spool with some nail clippers and you're in business:

https://charlestrentelman.blogspot.com/2020/10/original-kodak-six-16-shooting-present.html

Sample pic

Here's a scan of a darkroom-made print. These are really nice negatives to work with:

 

[BrianShaw]

Nice!

I periodically use another Kodak of the same era - Kodak Duo-620. There were many very capable cameras back then.

 

[Kino]

Very nice! Wow! I have one a friend gave me and have never bothered to shoot with it; just cleaned it up and displayed it.

Now, I think I'm inspired to give it a go! Great work!

 

[summicron1]

Nice!

I periodically use another Kodak of the same era - Kodak Duo-620. There were many very capable cameras back then.

yes, the duo 620 is a really lovely performer, German-made.

The surprising thing to me is how good this American-made camera performs. Sure wish Kodak still made stuff like that.

 

[MattKing]

My Made in Canada version was the camera my Dad had refurbished for me in 1967. It set me on the road I've been travelling on since then.
A related post, made in support of an MSA submission with the theme "portals".
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/portal-of-a-different-sort.14286/

 

[summicron1]

My Made in Canada version was the camera my Dad had refurbished for me in 1967. It set me on the road I've been travelling on since then.
A related post, made in support of an MSA submission with the theme "portals".
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/portal-of-a-different-sort.14286/

Very cool -- yeah, mine is giving me a window onto the past in a real way -- every year i write up some family history for my kids and illustrate it with family album shots and other stuff. This year I'm using images of our old homes in Salt Lake City taken with dad's camera, which he used to shoot them the first time around in 1952.

Mine has the original leatherette but the bellows were replaced about 40 years ago when dad gave it to me. The old ones were poor quality and had started to leak in 1952. The new ones are sterner stuff. I used that camera for some of my first efforts at photography in the 60s as well, back when you could still buy 616 film.

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that film that has been re-spooled on to a 620 spool might feed more easily in my camera.

 

[summicron1]

It occurs to me that film that has been re-spooled on to a 620 spool might feed more easily in my camera.

yeah, and it makes it a LOT easier to get the finished roll out of the take-up side, but instead of that, if you have a toenail clipper it is very quick/easy to just trim the plastic 120 spool edges down -- takes less time than re-spooling. Don't even need to smooth the edges.

 

[wjlapier]

I have a Kodak Junior Six-16 Series II. Sent it to Sandeha Lynch and he replaced the bellows. I've used a couple of times and really like it. 1/100th top speed takes some getting used to though.

I use a 616 spool to "pull" the film through the camera off the 120 spool. Two US quarters work as spacers to keep the 120 spool centered. Works just fine. I take the film out in a changing bag when it's time to develop.

 

[wjlapier]

The Kodak Junior Six-16:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have one but sadly the metal bit that turns the take up spool won't stay "in" the spool when I advance it. I was pretty gutted... I purchased spacers for it, too. I'll take another look at it to see if there is a work around... Cheers, and thank you for posting your image!

 

[MattKing]

I have one but sadly the metal bit that turns the take up spool won't stay "in" the spool when I advance it.

The mechanism is held in by friction in the area that the metal bit passes through to the outside key. Perhaps you can bend it in that area to increase the friction.

 

[Pioneer]

I love these old Kodaks. Among others I regularly use an old No. 1 Pocket Kodak with a f7.7 Anastigmat lens that takes amazing images.

It just reminds me that there was a time when quality was important to Kodak. I have to wonder whether Kodak would be in the same trouble today if it had kept that commitment to quality?

At least the Kodak color and black & white film I am using still reveals that same level of quality.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The mechanism is held in by friction in the area that the metal bit passes through to the outside key. Perhaps you can bend it in that area to increase the friction.

Bend it towards the film or away from it?

 

[MattKing]

Bend it towards the film or away from it?

I don't think this is a good thing to try to do through the internet!
See if you can see how the camera puts friction on that key - the friction that keeps it in, and then resists when you turn or pull it to release the key from the spool. The part that creates the friction is what you want to consider bending slightly.

 

[Camerarabbit]

Someone pointed me to this thread and I loooove the format and look, thanks for sharing your story and photos! I'd like to get a Six-16 myself, checking eBay now and there are tons, but no one is commenting on the shutter speeds being accurate (and I doubt any of them are). Are there people who can CLA these? I can replace the bellows myself, but adjusting shutter speeds is a mystery to me.

 

[summicron1]

Someone pointed me to this thread and I loooove the format and look, thanks for sharing your story and photos! I'd like to get a Six-16 myself, checking eBay now and there are tons, but no one is commenting on the shutter speeds being accurate (and I doubt any of them are). Are there people who can CLA these? I can replace the bellows myself, but adjusting shutter speeds is a mystery to me.

These have pretty simple shutters -- if they sound right they usually are and, if needed, a simple flush with some solvent should be sufficient. There is no slow speed gear in this -- those usually involve some sort of clockwork that gets gummed up.

Shutters on these were never horribly precise, but film has so much latitude you can get away with that. The 1/100 shutter speed is a bit limiting, but the way the camera is built, if you hold the bottom of the camera with your fingers and squeeze down on the trigger with your thumb you will find it stays pretty stead at 1/15 and 1/100 -- anything slower I'd use a tripod.

 

[mshchem]

This stuff is so nice to see. Such beautiful prints. I don't think most people realize how revolutionary film was, and in it's first 30 odd years progressed as fast as digital has in the last 30.
The modern film run through these older cameras shows what they are capable.
I need to cut some 5x7 sheet film down for my Grandma's Kodak postcard camera. Real photo postcards that were made well are truly amazing the details of a contact print. Good job!

 

[mshchem]

My Made in Canada version was the camera my Dad had refurbished for me in 1967. It set me on the road I've been travelling on since then.
A related post, made in support of an MSA submission with the theme "portals".
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/portal-of-a-different-sort.14286/

I've got a Kodak of Canada Ltd. Duo-flex? I know it takes 620. My cousin has a Kodak Duo-flex with a nicer lens and shutter. She was so happy to find out about re-spooling.

 

[MattKing]

The Kodak lab that my Dad was the Consumer Services manager for had a repair facility for Kodak cameras and projectors - thus the refurbishing of my camera, which probably originated 30 years earlier in the 1930s.
It was run by a wonderful technician and manager - a Retina and Medalist specialist!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got a Kodak of Canada Ltd. Duo-flex? I know it takes 620. My cousin has a Kodak Duo-flex with a nicer lens and shutter. She was so happy to find out about re-spooling.

All of the Duaflex cameras were 620. I've got Duaflex, Duaflex II, III, and IV models, two of them with the simple Kodet (fixed focus and aperture, I and B shutter) and two with the Kodar (f/8, f/11, f/16 and scale focus 3.5 feet to infinity, still I and B shutter). As I understand it, the lens choice was offered in all four generations; changes had to do with 120 exclusion features and double exposure prevention -- first model was native 620 but without specific 120 exclusion and no double exposure interlock; all later ones had a primitive interlock (you had to advance the film a little, but they never had mechanical frame counting that would allow more sophistication), III had an override for the interlock (to allow intentional doubles) and the II and III added turned-in flange plates (to exclude the larger spool flanges) and reduced length clearance (to exclude trimmed flanges -- which I wouldn't have expected to be an issue when 120 spools were metal, but there's no other sensible reason). I'm not sure what feature changed between the III and IV, but there surely was something -- adding features was how Kodak got consumers to replace their perfectly good camera, even if they didn't have the budget to step up to one that was genuinely more capable.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My favorite Kodak is the Medalist II, but my favorite Kodak folder is the Kodak Monitor 620 with the red "SPECIAL" lens. I just wish Kodak had used a different material for the bellows on the Monitor 620 and 616 as it seems almost everyone I come across has the bellows that looks more like a fish net than a bellows. I replaced the bellows on my "user" Monitor 620 and it takes as good as, if not better than any Zeiss Super Ikonta I own and it was far cheaper to acquire. Matt, I did own a Duo 620 with the rangefinder for sometime, but sold it to a friend who really wanted it. The lens was first rate, but I just never was fond of the format and thought that if I carried a folder it might as well be 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 instead of 6.45 or 6X6. Heck, I even like running some old rolls of Verichrome B&W film through my mint 3A postcard autographic with rangefinder. Now that's a big negative. Kodak certainly was "King" of cameras for a time period and those old cameras still show the craftsmanship and quality second to none. JohnW

 

[mshchem]

Why did Kodak push 620 ?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Why did Kodak push 620 ?

Mr. Eastman was one that never wanted to play second fiddle. He thought if he introduced 620 film and made all his cameras require it then eventually he would be first fiddle and only fiddle. Unfortunately, it didn't go exactly as George had planned. 120 film is still going pretty strong, but 620 is now only a bad dream. I'm just thankful that George didn't change the width of the film at all and respooling works just fine for my 620 cameras. JohnW

 

[grat]

Why did Kodak push 620 ?

Because 120 was an open standard. By pushing 620, they ensured that your camera would always have rolls labeled "Kodak" in them.