Why did half frame die?

[Newt_on_Swings]

The Konica AA-35 ran its film horizontally.

http://www.subclub.org/shop/konica.htm

 

[wiltw]

Film wasn't that good back in the seventies, you could really tell the difference in quality. Having worked in the photo finishing area at that time though, the main reason that people didn't like them wasn't a quality issue, but it simply took too long for them to finish a roll....remembering that a lot of folks thought that 12 exposures were too many! Also, 72 prints made a big hole in the weekly budget.
Still, there is a lot to like about the cameras, especially those from Olympus as you have found. I have a Pen D,the EE3 like you and the lovely Pen F with a few lenses. The pen F has, of course been re-birthed as a Digital, so popular was it's design.

^^^ Considering the fact that the smaller format APS film cartridge came out after emulsions had more chance to improve (1990s), yet the public turned its back of the APS format, just as it turned its back on the 110 format in the 1970's, the quality was not sufficient.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Bronica 645 RF and the standard version of the Linhof 220 are vertically oriented cameras. The design of the Linhof 220 with its pistol grip seems inspired by the RCA studio microphone of its era.

 

[tomalophicon]

I'd say:
People could have better quality prints using a camera the same size or smaller, with more models to choose from, which cost the same or less than half frame cameras, while using film that costs the same amount of money.
Plus, Canon and Nikon didn't make one after the 1970s (?).

 

[John Austin]

Half frame lives!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=731411&is=REG&A=details&Q=

Hoooray!!! - Wooo-Wooo-Wooo - I think single frame (the alternative name when half frame was introduced, which I remember) was a great idea - Only having to change films 3 or 4 times a day in each of three Nikon F bodies would have been great in the mid 1990s

Any now you are all remembering that your unloved tiny single frame cameras need a new home, I am looking for one to work with - Please donate one to me for postage, obviously not the high value PenF, but something small and easy - I pre-accept the derision I will receive when I am out working with 10x8" and single frame on the same job

 

[IloveTLRs]

I shoot 24exp film, and sometimes I purposely roll shorter for 1/2 frame - 12exp rolls, for example.

I also print 1/2 frame in the darkroom, on small paper: mostly 12x16.5cm sometimes 13x18cm. I just turn the easel 90° and it works great.

 

[alex66]

I read in a couple of places that it was the inability of mini labs to work with half frame that forced olympus to bring out a full 35mm frame slr. I think it was probably more to do with making simplified process for the workers of such labs and them refusing to do a 'non standard' size. For that matter I always fancied a square format 35mm based camera, it would be quite nice for portraits.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think you're right that it was labs who were against half frame, certainly here in the UK with the exception of two or three who specialised many weren't really geared up to handle the format.

Ian

 

[albcamp]

Don't forget the Yashica Samurai for horizontal orientation half-frame.

Not really suitable if you are looking for a small, pocketable half-frame.

The zoom lenses give perfectly acceptable results.

 

[werra]

And there is soviet horizontal half-frame Agat 18.
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?456868769

Changing aperture is quite an exercise on this little beast. Have the one since high school. Maybe would be fun to put the roll thru

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have a tough time trying to finish 10 expourse on my RB67.

Jeff

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Bronica 645 RF and the standard version of the Linhof 220 are vertically oriented cameras. The design of the Linhof 220 with its pistol grip seems inspired by the RCA studio microphone of its era.

The Fuji 645 rangefinders were vertically oriented as well. I loved using the Fuji GA645i for portraiture because of it.

I have an Agfa 1/2 frame camera, but there's something wrong with the shutter, so I always get a type of flare in the film area that is exactly the shape of the four-blade aperture. Perfect travel camera. Took it to shoot snap shots in Stockholm, Sweden, and it's great when it's cold to not have to re-load the camera after 24 or 36 shots. 72 shots last forever.

I can see why some would think it's a pain to print 72 pictures, and I agree, but in all I take the same amount of pictures, so why does it matter if I have 72 frames on one roll as opposed to two rolls? Seems practical to me, and with a film like Acros or TMax 100 the quality is still good enough to make nice prints. Or color film and scan to share with friends and family. Batch scans become easy when a film strip has more pictures.

Nobody can tell for sure why the 1/2 frame format failed, but it's obvious they didn't sell enough to continue producing them.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well I suppose 645 is kind of half -frame as well Thomas compared to a 6x9 My little Zeiss Ikonta 531 is certainly very much smaller than my Ensign Selfix 820 and I'm looking forward to switching the lens cells so that it'll perform decently once again

Ian

The Fuji 645 rangefinders were vertically oriented as well. I loved using the Fuji GA645i for portraiture because of it.

I have an Agfa 1/2 frame camera, but there's something wrong with the shutter, so I always get a type of flare in the film area that is exactly the shape of the four-blade aperture. Perfect travel camera. Took it to shoot snap shots in Stockholm, Sweden, and it's great when it's cold to not have to re-load the camera after 24 or 36 shots. 72 shots last forever.

I can see why some would think it's a pain to print 72 pictures, and I agree, but in all I take the same amount of pictures, so why does it matter if I have 72 frames on one roll as opposed to two rolls? Seems practical to me, and with a film like Acros or TMax 100 the quality is still good enough to make nice prints. Or color film and scan to share with friends and family. Batch scans become easy when a film strip has more pictures.

Nobody can tell for sure why the 1/2 frame format failed, but it's obvious they didn't sell enough to continue producing them.

 

[John Koehrer]

Most 1/2 frame cameras were dropped before the era of mini labs. A couple of oddballs popped up for a while and they too, went away.
No format smaller than 24X36 survived too long, no matter how much Kodak wanted the market with it's odd cartridges wanted them to.I've got a slug of slides from the 60's shot with a Pen F and they're OK, not as sharp as full frame but much better than 110/APS and disc. Remember them?
With 1/2 frame the expense for film was a bit less but you still had to pay for X # of prints.

 

[lacavol]

I have a Tessina which is slightly large for 1/2 frame. B&W if you are processing yourself is OK, as most was done by hand. Color is a problem as the automated machines won't handle it. It cost over $3 a print and that was about 15 years ago the last time I did color on it. So I think the processing costs with a lack of standardization did in the half frame.

EDIT: Tessina stayed in production until 1996.

 

[Ian Grant]

Most 1/2 frame cameras were dropped before the era of mini labs. A couple of oddballs popped up for a while and they too, went away.

It was the days of roll head printers that killed off half frame, the format was far more popular in Japan itself than the rest of the world and it needs to be remembered that equipment tended to be made in local markets. Durst manufactured their rollhead and higher lab end equipment in the UK (Durst Italy had bought Pavelle based in Church Road, Epsom). A friend who runs a lab used to be a service technician for Durst if I see him I'll ask what cappabilities there were with Durts roll head printers fo half frame, I do remember taht few labs would print from it here. So it's possible that Jpanese manufacturers of printers were more comitted to half frame.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well I suppose 645 is kind of half -frame as well Thomas compared to a 6x9 My little Zeiss Ikonta 531 is certainly very much smaller than my Ensign Selfix 820 and I'm looking forward to switching the lens cells so that it'll perform decently once again

Ian

I look forward to your results, Ian.

You should get a Minox and go to town. Quarter frame, or whatever they are...

 

[moki]

I love half-frames and it's sad that there aren't that many cameras for it.
I even modified a Canon EOS 30 to use only half the regular frame... just added a mask from thin black cardboard that leaves 18mm in the middle of the full frame. I mark the film when loading it, so I can first expose the even frames, rewind the film, load it again (with 18mm or 4 perforations offset) and then expose the odd frames. With a decent lens and modern film, the image quality is pretty good, only with a little coarser grain, which I prefer anyway. The biggest difficulty is imagining the new frame size in the viewfinder, but adding marks on the ground glass wouldn't be a big problem.
For better quality, I can just take out the mask and everything's back to normal. This works for almost every 35mm camera. I'd still love to have a Pen-F, but those are affordable for me at the moment.

 

[Paul Howell]

I worked part time at mini lab in the late 90s and early 2000s, we started with a Fuji analog printer which came with a 1/2 frame carrier, when the owner upgrader to a Frontier, the 1/2 frame carrier is very expensive and the few 1/2 frames clients did warrent the expense. Prints were good up to 5X7, 8X10 was ok, but 11X14 not so much. These were color mostly ISO 400, a good quility low speed would have gone a long way to improve quility.

 

[mikebarger]

Yes they were cute little cameras, but not all ideas are good ones. I can't say I ever saw a 1/2 frame print that wasn't a lot grainier than I like. For me it's like running 35mm film through a 120 camera, why bother?

Mike

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes they were cute little cameras, but not all ideas are good ones. I can't say I ever saw a 1/2 frame print that wasn't a lot grainier than I like. For me it's like running 35mm film through a 120 camera, why bother?

Mike

There are those who like grain. And those who don't care.

 

[John Austin]

As I have already said I like the idea of single frame 35mm, and without wanting to digress too far, question the idea of sharpness as being the final determinant - My ideas are to use SF cameras in a fun way, with Ultrafine 35mm film being very cheap in bulk loads there is no reason not to go for it and have fun

The aspect of grain and sharpness can be looked at from the other direction, that is to use a grainy film and print large - If I find one, or preferably a working Minox 35 (24x36 format, before someone makes a silly comment), I may well try it with some of my frozen stock of HIE (Kodak High Speed Infra Red) - If you want very high quality don't use 35mm at all and go for 120 at least and preferably LF

One of my favourite pix is on HIE and looks best when enlarged to 24x36"



Another way to work with single frame may be to use a whole roll of film in a fast and loose mode and load the processed film into a 10x8" enlarger and print the whole lot as a single 32x40" print - I have previously done this with an early morning finishing of a roll of BW 16mm before the roll went off to the lab' - A way I may play at with a single frame camera if I get one is to consciously make diptychs to be printed together in a standard 35mm enlarger - Pre-planning of pictures for the brain to keep old-timers-disease at bay



This is a scan of a test print, to show the whole print at the scale possible on a computer screen would show very little

 

[Hikari]

With TriX so bad, they did not have to bother to cut a frame in half to get grainy photographs.

 

[removed account4]

It gets better: at this very moment, Camera West has a half frame M4-P in stock, for a mere $22,995. Save those pennies...

thanks oren!
what a beautiful piece of art that is!
but 3 million pennies is quite a few more than i can even dream about !

hard to believe they destroyed a bunch of these M4-Ps ...

thanks for posting this !
john

 

[Roger Cole]

^^^ Considering the fact that the smaller format APS film cartridge came out after emulsions had more chance to improve (1990s), yet the public turned its back of the APS format, just as it turned its back on the 110 format in the 1970's, the quality was not sufficient.

APS did not fail due to lack of quality. It failed because the film was more expensive than 35mm, the processing using the special lab machines dramatically more expensive, and by the time it was on the market 35mm cameras were available with many of the same features for much lower film and processing costs.