Why did half frame die?

[eurekaiv]

I'm not so sure it really died. There's quite a lot of half frame stuff on flickr, and a lot of it is really really good. As for me, it's my favorite format and my half frames are my favorite cameras. They're generally extremely simple to use and the size and weight makes any of them—including my beloved Pen FT—very easy to carry along with two or three other compact film cameras, in my camera bag/"murse" that goes everywhere I do. I've taken to buying 12 exposure rolls for specifically running through the half frames. In general, I get about 30 shots from a roll of 12 which for me is more then enough.

 

[Dshambli]

I had never really been introduced to half frame, but it looks pretty cool. I might have to try this out.

 

[wiltw]

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.

The failure of APS was multiple in cause.

Yes, it was significantly more expensive than processing 135 format, but it also had going against it that the prints were generally not as good as what you could get with a conventional 135 format camera. The smaller film format (the APS film surface area was only 56% of 135 film) helped in the demise as well. Unlike APS digital which does not have inherent grain, that meant that the inherent film grain was magnified by about 1.8x greater! So the upper limit on print size, before grain became objectionable, was smaller than for 135 format. That factor, which is frequently mentioned in retrospectives on the format, limited the commercial success.

Additionally the expense of APS processing equipment made the number of locations that could process and print the film more restrictive, again an impediment to commercial success. And, with fewer and fewer places that can process the format now, that really limited the desirability of used cameras, even though you might be able to buy film.

 

[MDR]

Like photochemical photography halfframe is no longer part of the mainstream but it's still alive. My small halframe camera is the multiformat HF and FF Konica Autoreflex mostly set to HF. I like halfframe it gives me more grain with todays grainless films it allows me to shoot longer before changing the roll and it's the Ideal format to create in camera triptychs. I believe the last hf camera was the Yashica Samurai x 4 (1988 minilab era)

Dominik

 

[John Austin]

Right you lot,

Enough talk has happened, time to get to work and keep this format alive

I have put a WTB ad in the classifieds and am looking for a Canon Demi - If any of you have an unused working one to sell cheaply please let me know

Don't expect anything serious from this exercise, I will be using the worst film I can find and shoot sequences for multi-printing via a 10x8" enlarger and making diptychs to be printed together via a full frame 35mm enlarger

Fun Time!!!!!

John

 

[Peter de Groot]

I have two pen's ee-2. One loaded with color film and one with black and white pan f. They are nifty little camera's and they are my companions a lot of the time. I mainly scan the film and lately I have gotten to a more worked out idea what to do with the film.

Love to get a pen f though. Would be nice to be able to switch lenses.

 

[Roger Cole]

The failure of APS was multiple in cause.

Yes, it was significantly more expensive than processing 135 format, but it also had going against it that the prints were generally not as good as what you could get with a conventional 135 format camera. The smaller film format (the APS film surface area was only 56% of 135 film) helped in the demise as well. Unlike APS digital which does not have inherent grain, that meant that the inherent film grain was magnified by about 1.8x greater! So the upper limit on print size, before grain became objectionable, was smaller than for 135 format. That factor, which is frequently mentioned in retrospectives on the format, limited the commercial success.

Additionally the expense of APS processing equipment made the number of locations that could process and print the film more restrictive, again an impediment to commercial success. And, with fewer and fewer places that can process the format now, that really limited the desirability of used cameras, even though you might be able to buy film.

Of course it wasn't as good, but the vast majority of snapshots are never printed larger than 4x6 anyway. It was plenty good enough for that. I still think the real reasons are more to do with the expense. It was never really intended for the serious photographers who print a lot of 8x10s and 11x14s anyway.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

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

I fell in love with my Pen-F and Ilford Universal 400. Sharp lens, making soft pictures because the grain is the size of a baseball.

just added a mask from thin black cardboard that leaves 18mm in the middle of the full frame.

Thanks for the idea! I'll have to do that with my Nikon. I hadn't thought of the odd-even bit.

 

[removed account4]

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

you are right mike,
some things aren't for everyone ---
i'm glad for that, because if we all liked the same stuff life would be pretty boring ...

 

[BrianL]

Amazing that some of you old guys who were around prior to or after WWII did not chime in. Before WWII there were few, if any 1 frame 35mm cameras and these were more speicalty cameras than mainstream wuch as Robot and Tessena. During WWII film became a military commodity like so many other things and subject to consumer and export controls. After the war, most of the film production facilities outside of the US and UK were destroyed and the needed chemicals were subject to controls. As a result, film was both scarce and expensive in many markets, Japan being 1 of them. The US brass controlling the rebuilding of Japan knew that the boys over there had the German glass formula and did not have the cold war problems and rebuilding issues plaguing the other former AXIS powers so one of the industries slated for being rebuilt were related to photography as it had a ready market and the US camera manufacturers were not a strong lobbying force. The film problem was an issue though as could choke the rebuilding effort. The Japanese developed the 1 frame camera format to get the most images per footage and to bring down the cost per frame since the price of film was very high.

Hence, Japan began to make and market the 1/2 frame camera in its market and soon after to the US service personnel through the PX and finally got permission to export them. The problem was most makers could not grind the lenses to the quality needed to make a good lens for the format so most did not concentrate on the format. Olympus was able to obtain the German glass formula glass from, my understanding Nikon, and concentrated on learning to grind glass to the needed levels to make a good 1/2 lens. Where others failed of had limited success, Olympus succeeded and came out with its line of cameras. It was highly successful as a format in Japan and at least in the US market as they were sold through the PX at prices today we'd drool for and they also were able to establish and maintain a good distribution system in the US. But, with controls finally being lifted and film becoming plentiful and at reduced prices, the economizing of film declined and the market once again returned to 2 frame 35mm as the preferred format. Kodak, during the 1.2 frame period marketed 12 frame film so the 1/2 frame camera could produce 24 exposures. Here in the US they also introduced it but as a film for the realtors so they could have short roll abilities to photograph 1 home and have the film developed but, it was short lived. I can not remember the emulsion but it was not to my liking.

I got caught up in the 1/2 frame collector market in the early '80s when everyone and his brother were trading them for the 1 frame cameras and you had your pick on an average of $5 per camera. I had just about 1 of every model from Olympus including the Pen F lineup that I fell in love with. I also had the Konica Autoreflex that was switchable between the 1 and 2 frame format and an Alpa body plus others from Japan and 1 of the Exacta 1/2 frame bodies. About 1990, the Olympus rep that covered NYC and FL was running around collecting the PEN - F cameras, accessories and lenses at prices indicating he knew something no one else seemed to. The local dealer knew of my collection and called to see if I wanted to sell. I explained I'd be interest but only a complete buyout of all my collection of 1/2 frames and the Exacta collection for a decent MF system and a small 35mm camera as well as something I always wanted, a Minox LX. We cut the deal for a nearly new Bronica ETRS system, a Minox ML 35mm camera and an LX. I later learned that the doctors in NY were clamoring for F sereis bodies to backup the F dental body that was no longer made and were willing to pay almost anything for them as they were used on their microscopes and other instruments.

I have since acquired a Konica AA-35 1/2 frame and from time to time still use it when I want a shirt pocket film camera. It is not up to the quality of the Oly glass but, still very good as a daily user.

They are still realtively inexpensive on the used market so, if you've never tried 1, go for it. Admittedly a 1 frame slide ain't up to a 645 slide but at the average home viewing difference you won't lose much against a 2 fram slide. Only shortcoming is spending the time mounting the slides as most labs today do not carry the slide frames that are 35mm outside dimention but for the 1 frame format so they can be used with most slide projectors.

 

[Dshambli]

Looking up what BrianL was talking about, I discovered a 24x24 35mm format. Are these still around? That sounds really interesting.

 

[John Austin]

Looking up what BrianL was talking about, I discovered a 24x24 35mm format. Are these still around? That sounds really interesting.

There were at least two I know of, the Robot and Robot Royal 24, both from Dusseldorf and the Heinz Kilfit square format SLR, a bit like a flimsy Contaflex with an even flimsier waist level finder and a body shape like the Ihagee Exacta, only the other way round

I used a RR24 in Germany in the early 1960s, but found getting other lenses for it difficult, it was also heavy but a camera I regret selling

John

 

[thuggins]

The comments about the poorer print quality are flat out wrong. Olympus proved this time and again in the '60's by making prints up to 16x20 from their "half" frames. They would challenge professionals to tell them apart from full frame prints, and they invariably failed to do so. As Olympus pointed out, the 4:3's format was closer to the aspect ratio of standard print sizes (5x7, 8x10, 16x20, etc). So there was less cropping and less enlarging required.

Certainly, some folks would find that 76 exposures on one roll was just too much. But the real answer is that Kodak killed the format. They refused to make a slide frame for it. And as others have pointed out, the processing equipment wasn't set up to handle it. I actually had a guy curse me out in the early '80's for bringing in a roll from my Pen FT. It is easy to see why. If this became the standard, film sales would have essentially been cut in half.

Now that I'm older, I will admit that it is much easier looking at a 36x24 tranny than a 24x18. What I wouldn't ive for a pair of young eyes.

 

[John Koehrer]

The idea that 1/2 frame cameras were made in post war Japan to save on film cost is incorrect. The Oly single frames were made beginning in 1959 and ran into the '80's. The Canon Demi and Konica Auto reflex weren't introduced until '65ish
The only added cost in processing was for prints or the additional number of transparencies that had to be mounted. The 12 exposure film was marketed to realtors(see above) and not as short roll for 1/2 frame.

 

[ricardo12458]

I'm down to my last roll of film (Ektachrome 400/5074) and I'm only on frame 2!

It takes me several weeks to go through 36 exposures, when I'm not at some major event!!!

I normally have a 2 week turnaround after a major event.

Half-frame would mean having over 6+ mos of pictures on one roll!! I would rather have the pictures from one event on its own film.



-R

 

[John Austin]

I'm down to my last roll of film (Ektachrome 400/5074) and I'm only on frame 2!

It takes me several weeks to go through 36 exposures, when I'm not at some major event!!!

I normally have a 2 week turnaround after a major event.

Half-frame would mean having over 6+ mos of pictures on one roll!! I would rather have the pictures from one event on its own film.



-R

Get out there and make more pix, keep film manufacturing alive!! - That goes for all of you!!

Then go to the darkroom and keep paper manufacturing alive!! - That goes for all of you!!

 

[Dshambli]

I'm down to my last roll of film (Ektachrome 400/5074) and I'm only on frame 2!

It takes me several weeks to go through 36 exposures, when I'm not at some major event!!!

I normally have a 2 week turnaround after a major event.

Half-frame would mean having over 6+ mos of pictures on one roll!! I would rather have the pictures from one event on its own film.



-R

You could start bulk loading smaller rolls of film. Or just take GrumpyOldMan's suggestion of taking more pictures.

 

[Someonenameddavid]

If you think about commercial printing, the 4x6 prints are made from a long roll of 4 inch wide paper and full frame 24x36 negs travel a parallel path to the paper. You can't make a long roll of negatives with half frame and full frame mixed unless you want 3x4 prints for the Half frame . So you would have to print half frame on 6 inch wide paper which means you have to stock different sizes in glossy Matt and texture. You only run half frame some of the time and there is time consumed switching the machines over. You could run 828/126 film in the same setup as 35 mm
no problem. 110 would not require a different width of paper.

 

[alex66]

Get out there and make more pix, keep film manufacturing alive!! - That goes for all of you!!

Then go to the darkroom and keep paper manufacturing alive!! - That goes for all of you!!

Certainly its good to put a camera in your bag and then just walk with a load of film and photograph everything that pricks your eye. Until the builders came 2 wks ago I was averaging 10+ rolls a wk, I would walk from a train station to my university and as I can basically get off at 5 different stations......

 

[John Austin]

Certainly its good to put a camera in your bag and then just walk with a load of film and photograph everything that pricks your eye. Until the builders came 2 wks ago I was averaging 10+ rolls a wk, I would walk from a train station to my university and as I can basically get off at 5 different stations......

Hello, I have just had a look at your blog sites, which I like, and realise these documents will be valued later for more than their instant and eclectic qualities - They have also reinforced my desire to get a single frame camera, or just use my Retina, to get lots of pics and print whole rolls together by putting an entire film in my 10x8" DeVere and making 32x40" prints of the whole film in one go, as I have already suggested - Put them in with the Oh-So-Phuqing-Serious 10x8" work I do to lighten up my next exhibition, as I have already suggested

The Retina that Rae found for me in Bristol for 20 quid

 

[thuggins]

The idea that 1/2 frame cameras were made in post war Japan to save on film cost is incorrect. The Oly single frames were made beginning in 1959 and ran into the '80's.

You are correct that the original intent was never to save film cost. Maitani san developed the Pen's in his lifelong pursuit to make small, lightweight, inexpensive, high quality cameras. But Olympus wanted to sell cameras; Kodak wanted to sell film. In the end, Kodak was destined to win the conflict. You only bought the camera once. You had to deal with the processing headaches each time you shot a roll of film.

The ploy worked very well. As much as I loved (and still love) my Pens, the time came when I went into the local camera shop, put the Pen FT on the counter and told the guy, "I want a camera exactly like this, but full frame." I ended up with the lovely family group of the FT and an OM-2n. Thankfully, technology has solved the main problem. It is as easy to scan a half frame as a full frame.

 

[pen s]

How did a half frame nut like me miss this post for three days?
Regardless, why did it die out? I guess for all the reasons already stated, don't think I have any more insight than any others.

I've had 2 or 3 35mm half frame cameras at any one time for the last 40 years. My favorites are the original Pen VF camera with full manual control of shutter speed, aperture and focus,(never cared for the Pen EE's of any stripe) and the original Pen F with the 2 stroke advance and the plain matte focusing screen. I just can get along with the micro prism screens in the later FT and FV. Finishing a roll and then reading the contact sheet is a bug, although in my 20's it didn't seem so. Back then a 100 ft. of Tri-X was $8, and snap caps were 10 for a buck! Some used Nikor tanks and reels, Diafine, and you were ready to roll. I bought, loaded and shot a 100 ft. of Tri-X in one weekend at the Formula-V races at the Elkart Lake, Wisconsin racetrack. Took a couple days more to soup and contact print the negs. Nowdays 100 ft. of Tri-X is $65, snap caps a $1 each and I get through a roll of 72 in 1~3 months but now I use HC-110. My my, how times have changed.

 

[wiltw]

The comments about the poorer print quality are flat out wrong. Olympus proved this time and again in the '60's by making prints up to 16x20 from their "half" frames. They would challenge professionals to tell them apart from full frame prints, and they invariably failed to do so. .

It is very hard to believe truth in the above. 18x24mm frame enlarged to 16"x21" print requires 22.6x enlargement factor; 24x36mm frame requires 16.9x enlargement for 16"x24" final print size...1.34x greater magnification. Most folks agree that 16"x20" (16X) was the practical quality limit to prints from 135 format due to magnitude of grain size on that print, at 16.9x , so why on earth would anyone believe that even greater magnification be indistinguishable in comparing half-frame to full 135?!

Here is a thread about preferences of 135 vs. 6x7 film prints, and that does make a difference at 16X http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...t-size-vs-print-size-in-film-and-digital.html

 

[MDR]

How many enlargements are made from a full frame negative without cropping? A lot of people enlarge cropped 35mm up to 16x20 its probably grainy but sometimes grain enhances an image. Same quality as an uncropped 35mm enlargement unlikely but close to it very likely.

Dominik

 

[alex66]

Hello, I have just had a look at your blog sites, which I like, and realise these documents will be valued later for more than their instant and eclectic qualities - They have also reinforced my desire to get a single frame camera, or just use my Retina, to get lots of pics and print whole rolls together by putting an entire film in my 10x8" DeVere and making 32x40" prints of the whole film in one go, as I have already suggested - Put them in with the Oh-So-Phuqing-Serious 10x8" work I do to lighten up my next exhibition, as I have already suggested

The Retina that Rae found for me in Bristol for 20 quid

View attachment 49009

TY I tried enlarging neg strips on to 20x24, like you suggest, it looked interesting but I really fancied bigger it was just a little bit too small for my vision. It certainly has a lot of potential though with the right subject matter, I ended up doing 5x3's in a grid, they looked great. I do need to work on a better way of displaying them though, they were portraits of a single person though. I may try a couple of my walks as an enlarged 'contact sheet'. Alas I am dependent on the uni I am doing my MA in for a 10x8 enlarger and doing big prints, my home darkroom is 2 square meters and the enlarger only goes to 6x6.