camera
extrapoopie
means anything to anyone, I believe it was made in the 1950s. On the front
of the camera is a little compartment for a 1.5V button type battery. The
camera doesn't seem to have any automatic features, it has manual focus,
manual film advance, etc. So what's the battery for? I know pretty much
nothing about cameras, but now that I've got one I'm planning on figuring
out how to use it.
-xp
R124c4u2
The usual reason for a battery in the body of a camera is to power an exposure
meter.
Boron Elgar
I do not know this particular camera, but it may have a built in light
meter. Does it have auto aperture setting or length of exposure, by
chance? I would also bet that it is not as old as you think,
especially in light of the button battery.
Start here & go digging..
http://www.marriottworld.com/advertising/zeiss_ikon_1961/contaflex.htm
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contaflx/contflx.htm
Boron
Lalbert1
<extra...@yahoo.com> writes:
It's probably a model BC, and the battery powers a cadmium sulfide light meter.
Les
extrapoopie
"Boron Elgar" <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jpkntuggo6gfm88gs...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:10:24 -0800, "extrapoopie"
> <extra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I recently inherited an old 35mm camera. It's a Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex if
that
> >means anything to anyone, I believe it was made in the 1950s. On the
front
> >of the camera is a little compartment for a 1.5V button type battery. The
> >camera doesn't seem to have any automatic features, it has manual focus,
> >manual film advance, etc. So what's the battery for? I know pretty much
> >nothing about cameras, but now that I've got one I'm planning on figuring
> >out how to use it.
> >
> >-xp
> >
> >
> I do not know this particular camera, but it may have a built in light
> meter. Does it have auto aperture setting or length of exposure, by
Yup, it does have a built in light meter. I believe it's the Super BC.
There's a picture here:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contaflx/super.htm
> chance? I would also bet that it is not as old as you think,
> especially in light of the button battery.
You're right, it looks like it was made in the '60s.
> Start here & go digging..
> http://www.marriottworld.com/advertising/zeiss_ikon_1961/contaflex.htm
> http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contaflx/contflx.htm
Thanks for the links. The second one (Pacific Rim) is really helpful; I
found it yesterday and it helped me identify exactly which model I have.
Do you think it's worthwhile to track down the original user manual? I'm
hoping I can find a website to learn the basics without having to buy a copy
of the manual.
> Boron
-xp
extrapoopie
"Lalbert1" <lalb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021120133009...@mb-fh.aol.com...
Yes that's the one, the Super BC. Ok, I was wondering about that. I
assumed the battery was dead because it's been many years since the camera
has been used and who knows how long since the battery was replaced. But
the light meter is working and I was wondering if it magically worked with
'light power' or something... now that I've actually said it, it sounds kind
of silly.
> Les
-xp
R124c4u2
>Yes that's the one, the Super BC. Ok, I was wondering about that. I
>assumed the battery was dead because it's been many years since the camera
>has been used and who knows how long since the battery was replaced. But
>the light meter is working and I was wondering if it magically worked with
>'light power' or something... now that I've actually said it, it sounds kind
>of silly.
Not silly at all. A geat many light meters were indeed powered by solar power.
AFAIK all the ones built into a camera use a battery. WKY?
danny burstein
>Not silly at all. A geat many light meters were indeed powered by solar power.
> AFAIK all the ones built into a camera use a battery. WKY?
Akshually, some of the Polaroid [a] Land Cameras such as teh J-33 and
J-66 did, indeed, use a solar powered light meter.
The problem is that in The Good Old Days the selenium solar cells needed a
pretty large amount of surface area to be useful. Cadmium Sulfide(?)
(CDS) cells could be much smaller, but required battery power.
So almost all cameras opted for the CDS method.
danny " and then there's the Polaroid Swinger " burstein
[a] Polaroid is a registered trademark of someone or another these days,
as the original company is, alas, in silver halide history. which is quite
a bit disturbing.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Lalbert1
<extra...@yahoo.com> writes:
If the light meter is working then the battery is not dead (some cds meters can
operate without a battery). It's a great camera and you should invest in a
copy of the instruction manual. They run about $10. Here's what one site says
about your camera:
Super BC 1967-1970 f2.8 50mm Tessar Synchro-compur Leaf Shutter
Cds Exposure Meter * Meter designed for mercury batteries no longer sold in the
U.S. Modern non-mercury batteries are available but fall short of original
mercury batteries. The Super BC also has TTL metering. Battery door is located
on the front and it is a very common to encounter a broken battery door
There is a lot of information available about your camera - google on
"contaflex super BC.
Les
Blinky the Shark
I'll bet they were able to use nonsolar power, too -- as in metering
available light from, say, tungsten. Indoors. At night.
--
Blinky
Stan
>Yes that's the one, the Super BC. Ok, I was wondering about that. I
>assumed the battery was dead because it's been many years since the camera
>has been used and who knows how long since the battery was replaced. But
>the light meter is working and I was wondering if it magically worked with
>'light power' or something... now that I've actually said it, it sounds kind
>of silly.
With a name like extrapoopie you are worried about sounding silly?
I know diddly about cameras, but why couldn't a light meter run from a
photovoltaic source? Maybe not in the 1950s, but then again I don't
think there were button batteries available then either.
--
It's a well known fact that the only thing harder than herding cats is
winning an argument with your wife. - groo
GrapeApe
It probably has a built in light meter. The camera should work without it,
although the meter itself will be useless.
In the seventies, they started making the exposure automatically linked to the
aperture or shutter in such a fashion that the camera would NOT work, even in
manual mode, if the battery was not working. Some would, but only at a certain
shutter speed, for example.
Bob Ward
>-: "extrapoopie" <extra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:>Yes that's the one, the Super BC. Ok, I was wondering about that. I
>-:>assumed the battery was dead because it's been many years since the camera
>-:>has been used and who knows how long since the battery was replaced. But
>-:>the light meter is working and I was wondering if it magically worked with
>-:>'light power' or something... now that I've actually said it, it sounds kind
>-:>of silly.
>-:
>-:
>-:With a name like extrapoopie you are worried about sounding silly?
>-:
>-:I know diddly about cameras, but why couldn't a light meter run from a
>-:photovoltaic source? Maybe not in the 1950s, but then again I don't
>-:think there were button batteries available then either.
They did - the batteries are only needed to automate the camera. In
the olden days, the meter pointed to the appropriate settings and you
manually adjusted the lens or the shutter speed accordingly.
--
If you would like to view the AFCAlbum,
it is located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFCAlbum/
To join, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFCAlbum/join
GrapeApe
>meter. Does it have auto aperture setting or length of exposure, by
>chance?
That was a seventies thing. Meters built into SLRs started appearing after
WWII, and were not really common in 35mm SLRs until the sixties.
GrapeApe
>power.
> AFAIK all the ones built into a camera use a battery. WKY?
Sensitivity. The ones using solar power only were usually getting SOME direct
sun, it was still fairly bright, but it may be designed to meter an object that
may be mostly in the shade, perhaps standing in as hemispherical object
presenting something getting the same amount of sun from the side.
In the camera there is generally less light hitting the meter directly, things
need to be amplified to give a readable signal at all.
extrapoopie
"Stan" <sze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lq4otuk17jusd2ac1...@4ax.com...
> "extrapoopie" <extra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes that's the one, the Super BC. Ok, I was wondering about that. I
> >assumed the battery was dead because it's been many years since the
camera
> >has been used and who knows how long since the battery was replaced. But
> >the light meter is working and I was wondering if it magically worked
with
> >'light power' or something... now that I've actually said it, it sounds
kind
> >of silly.
>
>
> With a name like extrapoopie you are worried about sounding silly?
Good point.
> I know diddly about cameras, but why couldn't a light meter run from a
> photovoltaic source? Maybe not in the 1950s, but then again I don't
> think there were button batteries available then either.
I believe photovoltaic cells were invented in the 50s, and the camera was
actually made in the 60s, so I suppose it could have run from a photovoltaic
source. Which means my first thought wasn't silly after all. So I'm left
with just the silly name.
Bob Ward
>-:>I do not know this particular camera, but it may have a built in light
>-:>meter. Does it have auto aperture setting or length of exposure, by
>-:>chance?
>-:
>-:That was a seventies thing. Meters built into SLRs started appearing after
>-:WWII, and were not really common in 35mm SLRs until the sixties.
SLRs really weren't common before the 60's - The ones available after
WWII up to the 60's were mostly rangefinfer cameras - Leica, etc...
although there was the Exacta, in 1935,which, I believe was the first
35mm SLR.
Boron Elgar
Though a manual will be helpful, anyone who has an interest in
photography will be able to give you almost all of the information you
need to enjoy the camera.
A manual might be a chance & inexpensive find or you may have to shell
out a bit. Before you spend anything at all other than for the
battery, take a roll of 24 shot, store brand film & get it developed
cheap. Though that will not tell you that the camera is in tip-top
shape, it will tell you if it needs major work.
Nice camera. Nice lens, too. Check out ebay & see what it goes for
with collectors. YOu might find a manual there, too.
Boron
Boron Elgar
Yeah...like when this was from. If it has a battery, it has some sort
of metering.
Boron
Blinky the Shark
I didn't think *SLRs* were common until the sixties. When I think
fifties, I think pre-SLR Leicas and Nikons; i.e., rangefinder 35s.
--
Blinky
Greg Johnson
>Not silly at all. A geat many light meters were indeed powered by solar power.
> AFAIK all the ones built into a camera use a battery. WKY?
Not quite all - my old Olympus Trip has a solar-powered light meter
built into the lens.
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things...:
I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
had a Leica that did that.
--
Paul L. Madarasz
Tucson, Baja Arizona
"How 'bout cuttin' that rebop?
-- S. Kowalski
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jerry Bauer
(in message <hcuptu89g30ci0e87...@4ax.com>):
> On 21 Nov 2002 02:05:05 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>
>> GrapeApe wrote:
>>>> I do not know this particular camera, but it may have a built in light
>>>> meter. Does it have auto aperture setting or length of exposure, by
>>>> chance?
>>>
>>> That was a seventies thing. Meters built into SLRs started appearing after
>>> WWII, and were not really common in 35mm SLRs until the sixties.
>>
>> I didn't think *SLRs* were common until the sixties. When I think
>> fifties, I think pre-SLR Leicas and Nikons; i.e., rangefinder 35s.
>
> I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
> there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
> straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
> had a Leica that did that.
>
You had boxy things that you hung off your neck? Luxury! I'll tell
you what we had -- we had rocks! And we liked it!
I think what you are describing is a "double-lens reflex" camera.
The film lens and the viewfinder lens were coupled, so they focused
together. The film lens focused on the film (through the shutter),
and the viewfinder lens focused through a 45-degree mirror onto a
ground-glass screen on top of the camera. This allowed the user to
compose and focus an analog of the image that would be captured on
the film. The viewfinder image was inverted once by the lens, so
after reflection it appeared upright to the user.
With a "single-lens reflex" camera, the 45-degree mirror and
ground-glass screen are behind the single lens, and the mirror flips
out of the way before the shutter operates. All SLRs I've used have
had a pentagonal prism that flips the ground-glass image, so it may
be viewed through a small objective lens.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Paul L. Madarasz
<use...@bauer.best.vwh.net> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>You had boxy things that you hung off your neck? Luxury! I'll tell
>you what we had -- we had rocks! And we liked it!
>
>I think what you are describing is a "double-lens reflex" camera.
>The film lens and the viewfinder lens were coupled, so they focused
>together. The film lens focused on the film (through the shutter),
>and the viewfinder lens focused through a 45-degree mirror onto a
>ground-glass screen on top of the camera. This allowed the user to
>compose and focus an analog of the image that would be captured on
>the film. The viewfinder image was inverted once by the lens, so
>after reflection it appeared upright to the user.
>
>With a "single-lens reflex" camera, the 45-degree mirror and
>ground-glass screen are behind the single lens, and the mirror flips
>out of the way before the shutter operates. All SLRs I've used have
>had a pentagonal prism that flips the ground-glass image, so it may
>be viewed through a small objective lens.
Yeah, that's the bad boy I was talking about.. It's been 30 years
since I had that Leica, so my memory might not be all that it used to
be. Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
Gus
>1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
>half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
>--
>Paul L. Madarasz
Minolta SR-1 bought in 1963. No electrical at all. It had an light meter you
mount to the shutter speed wheel but that was sort of rinky dink. The base
unit is a GREAT camera still, a decent hammer, can swim in the ocean and
creeks, fry in the back window shelf, shrig off snow and rain and shoot
KodaChrome ASA 25 like nobody's business..... least my 5000+ slides indicates
that to me. Does okay with today's film too.
Blinky the Shark
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 7:23:32 -0800, Paul L. Madarasz wrote (in message
> <hcuptu89g30ci0e87...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On 21 Nov 2002 02:05:05 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>>
>>> GrapeApe wrote:
>>>>> I do not know this particular camera, but it may have a built in
>>>>> light meter. Does it have auto aperture setting or length of
>>>>> exposure, by chance?
>>>>
>>>> That was a seventies thing. Meters built into SLRs started
>>>> appearing after WWII, and were not really common in 35mm SLRs until
>>>> the sixties.
>>>
>>> I didn't think *SLRs* were common until the sixties. When I think
>>> fifties, I think pre-SLR Leicas and Nikons; i.e., rangefinder 35s.
>>
>> I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
>> there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
>> straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
>> had a Leica that did that.
I still have a twin-lens reflex -- a Mamiya C3 6x6 (negative size in
centimeters - also called "two-and-a-quarter square" because that's the
very rough equivalent in inches). The larger the neg, the better rez for a
print of a given size -- that's why view cameras range up to, IIRC,
10x20 inch sheet film, for extreme rez and/or very large prints.
These were much less expensive than the SLR medium-format cameras like
the Hasselblad and the Mamiya RB67.
> The film lens and the viewfinder lens were coupled, so they focused
> together. The film lens focused on the film (through the shutter),
> and the viewfinder lens focused through a 45-degree mirror onto a
> ground-glass screen on top of the camera. This allowed the user to
> compose and focus an analog of the image that would be captured on the
> film. The viewfinder image was inverted once by the lens, so after
> reflection it appeared upright to the user.
It's reversed side-to-side.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
>>Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
>>1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
>>half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
>>--
>>Paul L. Madarasz
>
> Minolta SR-1 bought in 1963. No electrical at all. It had an light meter you
> mount to the shutter speed wheel but that was sort of rinky dink. The base
I think their contemporary for my late-sixties Pentax Spotmatic was the
SR-101 (ST-101?) -- does that ring a Minolta bell? Possibly the main change was
that that one added through-the-lens metering.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
> Yeah, that's the bad boy I was talking about.. It's been 30 years
> since I had that Leica, so my memory might not be all that it used to
> be. Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
> 1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
> half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
My 35 SLR just predates that: Pentax Spotmatic. The one with the
then-quite-standard-across-various-brands threaded lens mount that I
believe the K replaced with a proprietary Pentax bayonet mount.
--
Blinky
Bob Ward
>-:
>-:I think what you are describing is a "double-lens reflex" camera.
>-:The film lens and the viewfinder lens were coupled, so they focused
>-:together. The film lens focused on the film (through the shutter),
>-:and the viewfinder lens focused through a 45-degree mirror onto a
>-:ground-glass screen on top of the camera. This allowed the user to
>-:compose and focus an analog of the image that would be captured on
>-:the film. The viewfinder image was inverted once by the lens, so
>-:after reflection it appeared upright to the user.
>-:
More commonly called "Twin-lens-Reflex" Think Rollieflex or
Rolliecord. I had a Yashica TLR that was pretty decent. 2 1/4"
square format on 120 or 220 roll film.
>-:With a "single-lens reflex" camera, the 45-degree mirror and
>-:ground-glass screen are behind the single lens, and the mirror flips
>-:out of the way before the shutter operates. All SLRs I've used have
>-:had a pentagonal prism that flips the ground-glass image, so it may
>-:be viewed through a small objective lens.
Many large format SLR's - Hasselblad, Bronica, etc allow the prism to
be removed for low-angle shots.
Bob Ward
<pl...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>-:On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 8:03:22 -0800, Jerry Bauer
>-:<use...@bauer.best.vwh.net> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>-:
>-:
>-:>You had boxy things that you hung off your neck? Luxury! I'll tell
>-:>you what we had -- we had rocks! And we liked it!
>-:>
>-:>I think what you are describing is a "double-lens reflex" camera.
>-:>The film lens and the viewfinder lens were coupled, so they focused
>-:>together. The film lens focused on the film (through the shutter),
>-:>and the viewfinder lens focused through a 45-degree mirror onto a
>-:>ground-glass screen on top of the camera. This allowed the user to
>-:>compose and focus an analog of the image that would be captured on
>-:>the film. The viewfinder image was inverted once by the lens, so
>-:>after reflection it appeared upright to the user.
>-:>
>-:>With a "single-lens reflex" camera, the 45-degree mirror and
>-:>ground-glass screen are behind the single lens, and the mirror flips
>-:>out of the way before the shutter operates. All SLRs I've used have
>-:>had a pentagonal prism that flips the ground-glass image, so it may
>-:>be viewed through a small objective lens.
>-:
>-:Yeah, that's the bad boy I was talking about.. It's been 30 years
>-:since I had that Leica, so my memory might not be all that it used to
>-:be. Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
>-:1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
>-:half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
I think your memory might be playing tricks on you... I don't think
that Leica has ever built anything but 35mm cameras, and they were
predominately eye-level rangfinder cameras until relatively recently.
They are now into digital, and also have built a well-respected 35mm
SLR for a few years now - current models start around $1500.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:Gus wrote:
>-:>>Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
>-:>>1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
>-:>>half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
>-:>>--
>-:>>Paul L. Madarasz
>-:>
>-:> Minolta SR-1 bought in 1963. No electrical at all. It had an light meter you
>-:> mount to the shutter speed wheel but that was sort of rinky dink. The base
>-:
>-:I think their contemporary for my late-sixties Pentax Spotmatic was the
>-:SR-101 (ST-101?) -- does that ring a Minolta bell? Possibly the main change was
>-:that that one added through-the-lens metering.
Combine them - it was the SRT-101.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2002 18:41:34 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>-:Gus wrote:
>>-:>>Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
>>-:>>1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
>>-:>>half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
>>-:>>--
>>-:>>Paul L. Madarasz
>>-:>
>>-:> Minolta SR-1 bought in 1963. No electrical at all. It had an light meter you
>>-:> mount to the shutter speed wheel but that was sort of rinky dink. The base
>>-:
>>-:I think their contemporary for my late-sixties Pentax Spotmatic was the
>>-:SR-101 (ST-101?) -- does that ring a Minolta bell? Possibly the main change was
>>-:that that one added through-the-lens metering.
>
>Combine them - it was the SRT-101.
Great little camera, too. It is what I have used to teach two of the
kids photography basics.
Boron
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:
>-:I still have a twin-lens reflex -- a Mamiya C3 6x6 (negative size in
>-:centimeters - also called "two-and-a-quarter square" because that's the
>-:very rough equivalent in inches). The larger the neg, the better rez for a
>-:print of a given size -- that's why view cameras range up to, IIRC,
>-:10x20 inch sheet film, for extreme rez and/or very large prints.
>-:
>-:These were much less expensive than the SLR medium-format cameras like
>-:the Hasselblad and the Mamiya RB67.
8x10 is probably the most common for large-format view cameras -
although 16x20 is used in some extremes.
For absolutely over-the-top, though, I'd have to go with the 20x24
Polaroid. There is only one of them, located inm Prague, but it is
occasionally made available to other photographers. I believe this is
the camera used to make one of the books featuring large-format photos
of the 9/11 firefighters and rescue workers who survived.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2002 18:36:22 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>-:
>>-:I still have a twin-lens reflex -- a Mamiya C3 6x6 (negative size in
>>-:centimeters - also called "two-and-a-quarter square" because that's the
>>-:very rough equivalent in inches). The larger the neg, the better rez for a
>>-:print of a given size -- that's why view cameras range up to, IIRC,
>>-:10x20 inch sheet film, for extreme rez and/or very large prints.
>>-:
>>-:These were much less expensive than the SLR medium-format cameras like
>>-:the Hasselblad and the Mamiya RB67.
>
>8x10 is probably the most common for large-format view cameras -
>although 16x20 is used in some extremes.
>
>For absolutely over-the-top, though, I'd have to go with the 20x24
>Polaroid. There is only one of them, located inm Prague, but it is
>occasionally made available to other photographers. I believe this is
>the camera used to make one of the books featuring large-format photos
>of the 9/11 firefighters and rescue workers who survived.
IIRC, the idea for this came about when "Last Supper" was being
restored. Polaroid developed it (or its predecessor) so that every
inch could be photographed life size before work began.
Boron
extrapoopie
"extrapoopie" <extra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:utnk10f...@corp.supernews.com...
> I recently inherited an old 35mm camera. It's a Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex if
that
> means anything to anyone, I believe it was made in the 1950s. On the front
> of the camera is a little compartment for a 1.5V button type battery. The
> camera doesn't seem to have any automatic features, it has manual focus,
> manual film advance, etc. So what's the battery for? I know pretty much
> nothing about cameras, but now that I've got one I'm planning on figuring
> out how to use it.
>
> -xp
Ok, can someone tell me how to properly load film into this thing? The take
up spool has a slot in the middle of it that looks like the end of the film
should fit into it, but the film is wider than the slot. I have to fold the
corners of the film to get it to fit, but that doesn't seem right. I can't
see how else the film is supposed to attach to the spool. Is there some
special technique for this? Do I need a special tool? A rake maybe? Google
didn't come up with anything helpful, so I turn to afca. Thanks to those who
answered my first question.
-xp
GrapeApe
>I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
>there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
>straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
>had a Leica that did that.
A very common and inexpensive camera still in wide use during the early sixties
was the Kodak Brownie. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of. Fixed focus.
Created a big negative though.
GrapeApe
>up spool has a slot in the middle of it that looks like the end of the film
>should fit into it, but the film is wider than the slot.
If its a 35mm camera (using 35mm film, not the lens itself) any cartridge of
35mm film should still work. A 35mm film cartridge has the starting end of the
film about half the width of rest of the roll, and can fit into most such slots
in the take up reel without much problem, although you might have to finagle a
bit more to get the roll started before closing the back.
Some SLRs and rangefinders had a way to cut the film midroll, if you wanted to
develop some of the film before shooting it all. You would have to unload the
film in the dark however.
More detailed info can be given on a photography newsgroup, including probably
some offers to buy it, or some offers to sell you a manual for it.
Lalbert1
<bob....@verizon.net> writes:
>On 21 Nov 2002 18:36:22 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>-:
>>-:I still have a twin-lens reflex -- a Mamiya C3 6x6 (negative size in
>>-:centimeters - also called "two-and-a-quarter square" because that's the
>>-:very rough equivalent in inches). The larger the neg, the better rez for
>a
>>-:print of a given size -- that's why view cameras range up to, IIRC,
>>-:10x20 inch sheet film, for extreme rez and/or very large prints.
>>-:
>>-:These were much less expensive than the SLR medium-format cameras like
>>-:the Hasselblad and the Mamiya RB67.
>
>8x10 is probably the most common for large-format view cameras -
>although 16x20 is used in some extremes.
>
>For absolutely over-the-top, though, I'd have to go with the 20x24
>Polaroid. There is only one of them, located inm Prague, but it is
>occasionally made available to other photographers. I believe this is
>the camera used to make one of the books featuring large-format photos
>of the 9/11 firefighters and rescue workers who survived.
>
Five 20x24 cameras were produced by Polaroid. Maybe one of them is in Prague.
The original camera was built in 1977 and weighed 600 pounds. It had a barber
chair support as its tripod, and was completely immobile. The newer 20X24
weighs 235 pounds, is on wheels, and has swings, tilts and rising fronts. It
resides in a studio in Soho (Manhattan).
Les
Lalbert1
<boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
Polaroid created the 20 x 24 to make large format photography available for a
wide variety of uses, from getting close-up magnified views of Raphael's
Transfiguration for the Vatican Museum to portraits of presidents. Wegman used
it to make his dog photographs.
Les
Bob Ward
<extra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:"extrapoopie" <extra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>-:news:utnk10f...@corp.supernews.com...
>-:> I recently inherited an old 35mm camera. It's a Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex if
>-:that
>-:> means anything to anyone, I believe it was made in the 1950s. On the front
>-:> of the camera is a little compartment for a 1.5V button type battery. The
>-:> camera doesn't seem to have any automatic features, it has manual focus,
>-:> manual film advance, etc. So what's the battery for? I know pretty much
>-:> nothing about cameras, but now that I've got one I'm planning on figuring
>-:> out how to use it.
>-:>
>-:> -xp
>-:
>-:Ok, can someone tell me how to properly load film into this thing? The take
>-:up spool has a slot in the middle of it that looks like the end of the film
>-:should fit into it, but the film is wider than the slot. I have to fold the
>-:corners of the film to get it to fit, but that doesn't seem right. I can't
>-:see how else the film is supposed to attach to the spool. Is there some
>-:special technique for this? Do I need a special tool? A rake maybe? Google
>-:didn't come up with anything helpful, so I turn to afca. Thanks to those who
>-:answered my first question.
>-:
>-:-xp
>-:
>-:
Normally, if you are using store-bought film (as opposed to reloading
it yourself from a bulk reel), there is a tongue cut for a leader - in
a camera that old, the take-up spindle might not have the slot in the
right spot, so you might have to cut an appropriate leader to make it
work.
Bob Ward
>-:>Ok, can someone tell me how to properly load film into this thing? The take
>-:>up spool has a slot in the middle of it that looks like the end of the film
>-:>should fit into it, but the film is wider than the slot.
>-:
>-:If its a 35mm camera (using 35mm film, not the lens itself) any cartridge of
>-:35mm film should still work. A 35mm film cartridge has the starting end of the
>-:film about half the width of rest of the roll, and can fit into most such slots
>-:in the take up reel without much problem, although you might have to finagle a
>-:bit more to get the roll started before closing the back.
>-:
>-:Some SLRs and rangefinders had a way to cut the film midroll, if you wanted to
>-:develop some of the film before shooting it all. You would have to unload the
>-:film in the dark however.
Film is and always has been (in my memory, at least) inexpensive
enough that it's simpler to just process the roll when you've taken
all the pictures the project requires, and discarding the excess. The
new APS cameras do have an interesting capability, though - you can
change film midroll, then change it back, so you could use B&W and
color without wasting half a roll every time you change.
Lalbert1
<bob....@verizon.net> writes:
>Film is and always has been (in my memory, at least) inexpensive
>enough that it's simpler to just process the roll when you've taken
>all the pictures the project requires, and discarding the excess. The
>new APS cameras do have an interesting capability, though - you can
>change film midroll, then change it back, so you could use B&W and
>color without wasting half a roll every time you change.
>
My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the remaining
film.
Les
danny burstein
>My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the remaining
>film.
Unless you use a big black bag (tm), you waste the negative
that's currently between the two reels. On, and quite possibly bits of the
one before and the one after.
danny " same with 110 and 126 and minolta and yashica cartridges "
burstein
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
GrapeApe
>Film is and always has been (in my memory, at least) inexpensive
>enough that it's simpler to just process the roll when you've taken
>all the pictures the project requires, and discarding the excess.
Which would explain the camera backs that cut the film so, huh?
APS should have been marketed towards people who use disc cameras rather than
people shooting 45. Let me cut off the tops and bottom of the shot and sell it
to you as a panorama, okay?
GrapeApe
>>restored. Polaroid developed it (or its predecessor) so that every
>>inch could be photographed life size before work began.
>>
>
>Polaroid created the 20 x 24 to make large format photography available
>for a
>wide variety of uses, from getting close-up magnified views of Raphael's
>Transfiguration for the Vatican Museum to portraits of presidents. Wegman
>used
>it to make his dog photographs.
Actually they developed it to make large format INSTANT photography available.
The main bit was being able to see the results relatively quickly, without
rushing a film holder into the darkroom. The same reason many shooting Medium
and large format and even 35mm use Polaroid backs. Its the 'instant' feedback
that is important.
For ID use, it is the fact that there is no way to make another print that is
important, although some Polaroid film packs can provide a printable
archiveable negative.
GrapeApe
>film.
So where the hell do you find film for those these days? Its not terribly
convenient cutting and rolling 16mm to fit, or processing same...
Bob Ward
>-:>
>-:>Film is and always has been (in my memory, at least) inexpensive
>-:>enough that it's simpler to just process the roll when you've taken
>-:>all the pictures the project requires, and discarding the excess.
>-:
>-:Which would explain the camera backs that cut the film so, huh?
>-:
>-:APS should have been marketed towards people who use disc cameras rather than
>-:people shooting 45. Let me cut off the tops and bottom of the shot and sell it
>-:to you as a panorama, okay?
Do you have a point here somewhere? You can still go back and print a
panoramic APS shot fullframe if you so choose - it just makes it
convenient to indicate to the photofinisher what your cropping
preference was at the time of exposure - nothing has been cut off, top
or bottom.
There is no market of people using disc cameras so far as I can see -
I don't think film has been available for quite some time.
A quick google indicates that this might be part of Kodak's thinking
in markiting APS...
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0006.shtml
Do you still make film for the KODAK Disc Camera?
Kodak no longer manufactures KODACOLOR GOLD Disc Film. Disc users now
have better products from which to choose. We encourage you to look at
our new ADVANTIX products for Advanced Photo System, which are as easy
to use as Disc photography, but will yield even better snapshots. For
more information, call the Kodak Information Center at 1-800-242-2424.
Bob Ward
>-:
>-:For ID use, it is the fact that there is no way to make another print that is
>-:important, although some Polaroid film packs can provide a printable
>-:archiveable negative.
Huh? No matter how many prints exist, they are still going to look
like the original subject. I contend that the use of Instant
Photography for ID is convenience, in view of the fact that most of
the places I'm aware of for getting passport photos, including every
Costco, Sams club and Walmart, are using digital cameras now - and
there certainly is no limit on the number of prints.
As a matter of fact, I am producing ID cards for the 40 employees of
the Compton Unified School Police in Compton, CA next week, using a
digital camera and an inkjet printer.
GrapeApe
Its a smaller negative. You are getting less resolution. They are trying to
sell it as more.
>You can still go back and print a
>panoramic APS shot fullframe if you so choose -
Whoopee! Its still crap. Better than 110 though or disc though. Glad you like
it.
Bob Ward
>-:>My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the remaining
>-:>film.
>-:
>-:So where the hell do you find film for those these days? Its not terribly
>-:convenient cutting and rolling 16mm to fit, or processing same...
Assuming this is not a rhetorical qurestion, google says
http://www.ecamerasonline.com/f/Minox_Film/ would be a good place to
start. Unfortunately, it's no longer stocked.
Bob Ward
>-:>Do you have a point here somewhere?
>-:
>-:Its a smaller negative. You are getting less resolution. They are trying to
>-:sell it as more.
>-:
No, they are trying to sell it as more convenient.
>-:>You can still go back and print a
>-:>panoramic APS shot fullframe if you so choose -
>-:
>-:Whoopee! Its still crap. Better than 110 though or disc though. Glad you like
>-:it.
>-:
You seem to be reading something into my posts that I did not write.
I didn't say that I liked APS - I'm not aware of any serious
photographer who does - but it IS a good choice for millions of people
who take pictures on their vacation, and little else.
Lalbert1
writes:
>In <20021121201157...@mb-fw.aol.com> lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1)
>writes:
>
>>My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the
>remaining
>>film.
>
>Unless you use a big black bag (tm), you waste the negative
>that's currently between the two reels. On, and quite possibly bits of the
>one before and the one after.
Yes, but the roll has 50 exposures, so wasting a few is better than wasting
half a roll.
Les
Lalbert1
>>My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the
>remaining
>>film.
Sumgai:
>So where the hell do you find film for those these days? Its not terribly
>convenient cutting and rolling 16mm to fit, or processing same...
I find the film in my local camera store; it is still being made. I process
the film myself in a Minox daylight developing tank. The film loads into the
tank without having to do it in a dark room, and the tank takes only 50 ml of
developer (all the while I am developing my teeny tiny negatives, teeny tiny
violins are playing).
I'm able to print great 5x7s that you can't tell from 35mm.
Les
Lalbert1
<bob....@verizon.net> writes:
>On 22 Nov 2002 01:53:28 GMT, grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
>
>>-:>My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the
>remaining
>>-:>film.
>>-:
>>-:So where the hell do you find film for those these days? Its not terribly
>>-:convenient cutting and rolling 16mm to fit, or processing same...
>
>
>Assuming this is not a rhetorical qurestion, google says
>http://www.ecamerasonline.com/f/Minox_Film/ would be a good place to
>start. Unfortunately, it's no longer stocked.
>
Not true. I buy it routinely at my local camera store, and Minox film is
available at many camera stores, and from many web sources. The stores that
are apt to carry Minox film are usually high-end camera stores, not the Fox
Photo or Ritz Photo type of stores.
Les
Lalbert1
(GrapeApe) writes:
You are so off the beam with your response that it is difficult to know where
to begin. Please note that we are discussing the super large 20x24 Polaroid
camera, and that was built in 1977 as mentioned in my post that you edited. We
are NOT discussing the philosophy behind instant photography in general - we
are specifically discussing the 20x24 Polaroid camera.
Les
Bob Ward
>-:In article <kj4rtu815e5nmj81j...@4ax.com>, Bob Ward
>-:<bob....@verizon.net> writes:
>-:
>-:>On 22 Nov 2002 01:53:28 GMT, grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
>-:>
>-:>>-:>My Minox B also lets me change film in mid-roll without wasting the
>-:>remaining
>-:>>-:>film.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:So where the hell do you find film for those these days? Its not terribly
>-:>>-:convenient cutting and rolling 16mm to fit, or processing same...
>-:>
>-:>
>-:>Assuming this is not a rhetorical qurestion, google says
>-:>http://www.ecamerasonline.com/f/Minox_Film/ would be a good place to
>-:>start. Unfortunately, it's no longer stocked.
>-:>
>-:
>-:Not true. I buy it routinely at my local camera store, and Minox film is
>-:available at many camera stores, and from many web sources. The stores that
>-:are apt to carry Minox film are usually high-end camera stores, not the Fox
>-:Photo or Ritz Photo type of stores.
>-:
>-:Les
I was only referring to the fact that it is no longer stocked at the
site I mentioned. Since I don't have or anticipate owning a Minox
camera, this exhausted my interest in persuing the subject in further
depth.
Greg Goss
>I recently inherited an old 35mm camera. It's a Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex if that
>means anything to anyone, I believe it was made in the 1950s. On the front
>of the camera is a little compartment for a 1.5V button type battery. The
>camera doesn't seem to have any automatic features, it has manual focus,
>manual film advance, etc. So what's the battery for? I know pretty much
>nothing about cameras, but now that I've got one I'm planning on figuring
>out how to use it.
Probably exposure duration. A lightmeter.
Greg Goss
>>I didn't think *SLRs* were common until the sixties. When I think
>>fifties, I think pre-SLR Leicas and Nikons; i.e., rangefinder 35s.
>
>I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
>there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
>straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
>had a Leica that did that.
The school photography club's camera was one of those. I called it a
"DLR" (dual lens reflex). The viewfinder looked on a ground glass
"screen" that showed an image projected through a lens that moved with
the main lens.
I was using this in the early seventies, but I don't know how old it
was then.
Gus
>Yes, but the roll has 50 exposures, so wasting a few is better than wasting
>half a roll.
Reminds me.. Last good camer I had my hands on was a Zies 56 inch 9X9 mapping
camers with gyro stablization, motion compensating platten, GPS position in all
three axis, 1.5 second frie rate if needed, 500 foot roll capacity, for B/W,
color, false color, ir B/W, IR color, IR False color etc. don't through away ˝
rools of that stuff..... he he he.
Have in the past picked up a Fairchild T-12, both 6 and 12 inche, 9X9 mapping
cameras and shot side shots by hand, yeah, I am big. LOL
great detail :)
Greg Goss
>Akshually, some of the Polaroid [a] Land Cameras such as teh J-33 and
>J-66 did, indeed, use a solar powered light meter.
>
>The problem is that in The Good Old Days the selenium solar cells needed a
>pretty large amount of surface area to be useful. Cadmium Sulfide(?)
>(CDS) cells could be much smaller, but required battery power.
>
>So almost all cameras opted for the CDS method.
I once had a polariod that used a reference light and the human eye
for the lightmeter. You squeezed the trigger and rotated it until a
particular pattern in the viewfinder appeared or disappeared. Then
you press the trigger.
extrapoopie
"Bob Ward" <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7b0rtu4jdoojtbl8t...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:45:58 -0800, "extrapoopie"
> <extra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >-:Ok, can someone tell me how to properly load film into this thing?
<snip>
> Normally, if you are using store-bought film (as opposed to reloading
> it yourself from a bulk reel), there is a tongue cut for a leader - in
> a camera that old, the take-up spindle might not have the slot in the
> right spot, so you might have to cut an appropriate leader to make it
> work.
Ok, I guess the slot is in the wrong place for the film I'm using. I'll try
cutting it; that should work better than folding it.
Thanks,
-xp
GrapeApe
>that is
>>-:important, although some Polaroid film packs can provide a printable
>>-:archiveable negative.
>
>
>Huh? No matter how many prints exist, they are still going to look
>like the original subject. I contend that the use of Instant
>Photography for ID is convenience, in view of the fact that most of
>the places I'm aware of for getting passport photos, including every
>Costco, Sams club and Walmart, are using digital cameras now - and
>there certainly is no limit on the number of prints.
Yes, Bob but you aren't the brightest apple on the tree either.
The point is that no other copy of that particular sitting and pose exist,
besides the copy you carry in your pocket, and the copy the DMV or the Port
Authority have on file. Because if the images did not match, they would
consider one of them a fraud. They will still look like the subject, but it
will not match the particular image of the subject being held on file.
Not that the ability to get them on the spot is not important as well.
GrapeApe
>where
>to begin. Please note that we are discussing the super large 20x24 Polaroid
>camera, and that was built in 1977 as mentioned in my post that you edited.
> We
>are NOT discussing the philosophy behind instant photography in general
>- we
>are specifically discussing the 20x24 Polaroid camera.
But it is still an instant process. It is the size of instant film that makes
it special, and that one print only is created, at that time.
View cameras of that size have existed, as have larger camera obscuras. It is
just that they are not usually used for panchromatic full tone or color
photography, more commonly shooting high contrast ortho or an equivalent. I
think the largest sheet film Kodak may make available now is 11 x 14, outside
of that that may be made available for Xray use.
That is. the phrase "Polaroid created the 20 x 24 to make large format
photography avilable for a wide variety of uses..." suggests that there was no
large format photography before Polaroid invented it. The fact that it is that
large is certainly a plus, but it wasn't exactly an idea out of the blue.
Making it a *Polaroid* process camera was what was uniquely theirs, not that
fact that it is 20 x 24, although that is impressive as well.
Putain d'Enculé
back on 22 Nov 2002 22:19:16 GMT that ...
>Yes, Bob but you aren't the brightest apple on the tree either.
Are you sure you aren't munching on light bulbs?
Bill "the bland taste should be a hint, but then it could be a
Washington Delicious (TM)"
"Yow! Life is a blur of Republicans and meat!"
- Bill Griffith, as quoted by incandescent blue
Bob Ward
>-:>>-:For ID use, it is the fact that there is no way to make another print
>-:>that is
>-:>>-:important, although some Polaroid film packs can provide a printable
>-:>>-:archiveable negative.
>-:>
>-:>
>-:>Huh? No matter how many prints exist, they are still going to look
>-:>like the original subject. I contend that the use of Instant
>-:>Photography for ID is convenience, in view of the fact that most of
>-:>the places I'm aware of for getting passport photos, including every
>-:>Costco, Sams club and Walmart, are using digital cameras now - and
>-:>there certainly is no limit on the number of prints.
>-:
>-:Yes, Bob but you aren't the brightest apple on the tree either.
>-:
>-:The point is that no other copy of that particular sitting and pose exist,
>-:besides the copy you carry in your pocket, and the copy the DMV or the Port
>-:Authority have on file. Because if the images did not match, they would
>-:consider one of them a fraud. They will still look like the subject, but it
>-:will not match the particular image of the subject being held on file.
>-:
>-:Not that the ability to get them on the spot is not important as well.
Hmmm - in that case, why in the hell doesn't the DMV use Polaroid film
in creating driver's licenses, rather than a digital camera? Show us
an authoritative source that indicates that Polaroid film is
preferable for producing ID's?
When and where do the DMV or the Port Authority actually compare the
image on file with the image on the ID card? Does every highway
patrolman or Port Authority cop carry this unique matching photo
around with them to use when checking ID's?
You shouldn't be talking about being a bright apple - it sounds like
you are hitting the applesauce a bit too often.
Bob Ward
>-:
>-:But it is still an instant process. It is the size of instant film that makes
>-:it special, and that one print only is created, at that time.
If it's so special, and so vital for producing ID cards, why did
Polaroid stock drop from $50.31 in 1997 to 28 cents as of October
12,2001?
Why do the major players in the Photo ID industry no longer sell
Polaroid based ID card systems?
Lalbert1
<extra...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Ok, I guess the slot is in the wrong place for the film I'm using. I'll try
>cutting it; that should work better than folding it.
Go here:
http://photographytips.com/page.cfm/214
It doesn't have pictures, but it gives film loading instructions that should be
good for almost any 35mm camera, including yours. 35mm film leaders have been
the same since forever, and the take-up spool of your camera should have one or
more slots that run the *full width of the spool*. You shouldn't have to cut
the film to load it.
Les
Mark Brader
> 8x10 [inch] is probably the most common for large-format view cameras -
> although 16x20 is used in some extremes.
>
> For absolutely over-the-top, though, I'd have to go with the 20x24
> Polaroid. There is only one of them ...
Of course, the chief domain of *really* big cameras is astronomy.
For most of the 20th century, most of the large telescopes used
by professional astronomers normally had their images directed onto
photographic emulsion, this usually on the traditional glass plates.
Thus the entire telescope would in effect form a camera, although
one without a shutter. (Late in the century, digital photography
developed to the point where it has pretty much taken over.)
When Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto, for instance, he did it by
comparing images photographed on two 14x17 inch glass plates, which,
incidentally, cost more than $5 each in 1929. The telescope used
was a small one by professional astronomy standards: a refractor
about 5 feet long, with a 13-inch objective lens. The image plane
was slightly curved, and the plates had to be mounted in a frame
with screws to force them into the corresponding curvature.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Dr. Slipher, I have found your Planet X."
m...@vex.net -- Clyde Tombaugh (1906-97), 1930-02-18
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Blinky the Shark
> On 21 Nov 2002 18:41:34 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>-:Gus wrote:
>>-:>>Actually, right now I'm using a 30-year-old Asahi (!) Pentax K
>>-:>>1000 -- no bells, no whistles, but you have to be at least a
>>-:>>half-assed photographer to use it. I love it.
>>-:>>--
>>-:>>Paul L. Madarasz
>>-:>
>>-:> Minolta SR-1 bought in 1963. No electrical at all. It had an light meter you
>>-:> mount to the shutter speed wheel but that was sort of rinky dink. The base
>>-:
>>-:I think their contemporary for my late-sixties Pentax Spotmatic was the
>>-:SR-101 (ST-101?) -- does that ring a Minolta bell? Possibly the main change was
>>-:that that one added through-the-lens metering.
>
> Combine them - it was the SRT-101.
Bingo. That does sound better.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
> On 21 Nov 2002 18:36:22 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>-:
>>-:I still have a twin-lens reflex -- a Mamiya C3 6x6 (negative size in
>>-:centimeters - also called "two-and-a-quarter square" because that's the
>>-:very rough equivalent in inches). The larger the neg, the better rez for a
>>-:print of a given size -- that's why view cameras range up to, IIRC,
>>-:10x20 inch sheet film, for extreme rez and/or very large prints.
>>-:
>>-:These were much less expensive than the SLR medium-format cameras like
>>-:the Hasselblad and the Mamiya RB67.
>
> 8x10 is probably the most common for large-format view cameras -
> although 16x20 is used in some extremes.
>
> For absolutely over-the-top, though, I'd have to go with the 20x24
> Polaroid. There is only one of them, located inm Prague, but it is
Good grief -- 20x24 *Polaroid*? Doesn't using that kind of hardware to
make an image on a Polaroid medium sound kinda like using a micrometer
to measure something you're going to cut with a chain saw?
--
Blinky
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:Bob Ward wrote:
>-:
>-:> On 21 Nov 2002 18:36:22 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid>
>-:> wrote:
>-:>
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:I still have a twin-lens reflex -- a Mamiya C3 6x6 (negative size in
>-:>>-:centimeters - also called "two-and-a-quarter square" because that's the
>-:>>-:very rough equivalent in inches). The larger the neg, the better rez for a
>-:>>-:print of a given size -- that's why view cameras range up to, IIRC,
>-:>>-:10x20 inch sheet film, for extreme rez and/or very large prints.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:These were much less expensive than the SLR medium-format cameras like
>-:>>-:the Hasselblad and the Mamiya RB67.
>-:>
>-:> 8x10 is probably the most common for large-format view cameras -
>-:> although 16x20 is used in some extremes.
>-:>
>-:> For absolutely over-the-top, though, I'd have to go with the 20x24
>-:> Polaroid. There is only one of them, located inm Prague, but it is
>-:
>-:Good grief -- 20x24 *Polaroid*? Doesn't using that kind of hardware to
>-:make an image on a Polaroid medium sound kinda like using a micrometer
>-:to measure something you're going to cut with a chain saw?
Cut with a laser, perhaps - nothing inherently imprecise or sloppy
about Polaroid - it's been accepted in the fine arts for quite some
time now. at 16x20 inches it's not exactly something you shoot
casually at your cousin's wedding.
Blinky the Shark
>>
>>I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
>>there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
>>straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
>>had a Leica that did that.
>
> was the Kodak Brownie. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of. Fixed focus.
I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
into the box" description.
--
Blinky
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:GrapeApe wrote:
>-:>>
>-:>>I forget what they were called ( 3 by 5s?), but when I was young,
>-:>>there were these boxy things you hung off your neck. You looked
>-:>>straight down into the box, and a prism would frame the picture. I
>-:>>had a Leica that did that.
>-:>
>-:> A very common and inexpensive camera still in wide use during the early sixties
>-:> was the Kodak Brownie. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of. Fixed focus.
>-:
>-:I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
>-:twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>-:into the box" description.
Actually, the early Brownies did indeed have a reflex viewer, but it
was not like the twin-lens-reflex, with a ground-glass focusing
screen. They had a simple prism to give you an approximation of the
area of coverage, but since they were fixed focus, that was about all
it was good for.
For a picture of one model, see
http://members.aol.com/Chuck02178/27.htm
GrapeApe
>make an image on a Polaroid medium sound kinda like using a micrometer
>to measure something you're going to cut with a chain saw?
I think the materials in their 20 x 24 film/paper may be a bit more archival
quality in nature. But still, the main thing is, you do not have to deal with
darkroom processing of a larger negative, you can get relatively quick feedback
if the shot worked or not.
GrapeApe
>twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>into the box" description.
A brownie was a box, and you looked down into a prism rangefinder from the top.
A lens may not have been involved for the rangefinder but indeed it worked
simiarly in that what was used for the rangefiner was an image seen from a
point a little above the lens actually taking the image.
A Brownie was fixed focus (or it has some sort of far or near, either or
mechanism... there was a grey button on mine to the side that sid up or down
for some reason.) Being fixed Focus, it didn't need the advantages of a twin
lens system, where you could use the second lens to actually focus the image.
When someone is referring to a TLR or twin lens reflex, they are usually
referring to a something along the lines of a Rolleiflex (fixed lens) or Mamiya
220 (interchangeable lens system).
As far as looking down into a box goes, it could be a Hassleblad or RB. But if
"Box Camera" was in the dictionary, and someone put a drawing of a Kodak
Brownie next to it, I wouldn't blink.
But TLRs do have a certain boxiness, it is merely a taller box, one that is
less square. And arguably, most all cameras are box cameras. At least the ones
that need to keep the film in a single focal plane.
Some panoramic cameras come in a hat box.
GrapeApe
>twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>into the box" description.
They were a box camera, whose cheap prism rangefinder was looked into from
above.
GrapeApe
>in creating driver's licenses, rather than a digital camera? Show us
>an authoritative source that indicates that Polaroid film is
>preferable for producing ID's?
It is what they insist upon for Passports. No chance of manipulation or trading
the image outside the system.
There haven't always been digital camera ID creation solutions, but you find
these days, they are printing directly on the card to be used-- not as easy to
find the media, if you are creating a fake ID.
Our state licenses used a polaroid system for years-- the license itself was
part of the image, that is the entire license was a polaroid print combined in
the camera or via double exposure.
You can imagine with access to the right equipment and some graphic arts
knowledge, that it would be fairly easy to crank out fairly convicing fake IDs.
It was. That is one reason it isn't used as widely anymore.
The security advantage of Polaroid systems such as shown on this link...
http://www.asqweb.com/catalog/idr_cameras-composite.asp?WebpageID=85
...was that the authorities had a filed copy of the same pose, the same
sitting, to check the ID against. If your intent was merely to fool the guy at
the bar into selling you booze, or letting you in the club for the show, the
security features of the polaroid ID system really didn't come into play until
one was handed over to the constabulary.
The advantage of a Polaroid system is that it generally creates one original,
or one set of images on one print, without having to send an intermediary piece
of film into a bath of chemicals in a darkened room somewhere, and could
provide that unique one of a kind positive print relatively quickly and
conveniently, without having the guys at the drugstore snag copies of prints
for themselves.
The fact that that convenience has led to some rather interesting camera
designs is really beside the point. Those same camera designs could work with
any photosensitive film or plate. People want them to work with Polaroid
Instant film.
GrapeApe
>If it's so special, and so vital for producing ID cards, why did
>Polaroid stock drop from $50.31 in 1997 to 28 cents as of October
>12,2001?
>
>Why do the major players in the Photo ID industry no longer sell
>Polaroid based ID card systems?
Because it is less vital- there are digital camaras that provide the same
instant feedback and convenience.
Polaroid stock went south for MANY reasons.
Just as large cameras are made for many reasons, by many people.
The reason the 20 x24 polaroid camera is so special, is because it is a
Polaroid. If it were not for the immediately available postive image, they
would probably be shooting smaller film in a smaller view camera for the same
purpose, and waiting for their prints
One advantage however, you get every bit of detail that is available to an
image that size-- it is comparable to actually shooting a piece of film that
size, there isn't that much resolution lost to dye layers and other sandwiches
of photosensitive materials being involved rather than in a piece of film.
Grain definately does not become an imaging problem.
Nick Spalding
In some models there were two of them (viewfinders not rangefinders)
one on top and one on the side so that it could be used to produce
pictures in landscape or portrait mode.
Incidentally were those descriptors in use before the days of computer
printers? I don't recall seeing them before then but maybe they come
from professional printing terminology.
--
Nick Spalding
GrapeApe
> so that it could be used to produce
>pictures in landscape or portrait mode.
>
>Incidentally were those descriptors in use before the days of computer
>printers? I don't recall seeing them before then but maybe they come
>from professional printing terminology.
>--
Old as landscapes and portraits themselves, perhaps
Bob Ward
>-:It is what they insist upon for Passports. No chance of manipulation or trading
>-:the image outside the system.
>-:
>-:There haven't always been digital camera ID creation solutions, but you find
>-:these days, they are printing directly on the card to be used-- not as easy to
>-:find the media, if you are creating a fake ID.
>-:
>-:Our state licenses used a polaroid system for years-- the license itself was
>-:part of the image, that is the entire license was a polaroid print combined in
>-:the camera or via double exposure.
>-:
>-:You can imagine with access to the right equipment and some graphic arts
>-:knowledge, that it would be fairly easy to crank out fairly convicing fake IDs.
>-: It was. That is one reason it isn't used as widely anymore.
>-:
>-:The security advantage of Polaroid systems such as shown on this link...
When you're right, you're right. When you're wrong, you're wrong.
http://travel.state.gov/passport_obtain.html
Your photographs must be:
2x2 inches in size
Identical
Taken within the past 6 months, showing current appearance
Color or black and white
Full face, front view with a plain white or off-white background
Between 1 inch and 1 3/8 inches from the bottom of the chin to the top
of the head
Taken in normal street attire
Uniforms should not be worn in photographs except religious attire
that is worn daily.
Do not wear a hat or headgear that obscures the hair or hairline.
If you normally wear prescription glasses, a hearing device, wig or
similar articles, they should be worn for your picture.
Dark glasses or nonprescription glasses with tinted lenses are not
acceptable unless you need them for medical reasons. A medical
certificate may be required.
Click here for information on acceptable digitized photos.
<click>
DIGITIZED PASSPORT PHOTOS
If you choose to submit digitized photos, they must meet the same
requirements of all passport photographs. In addition, digitized
photographs are always produced on digital printers. Some printers
will produce a photograph in which the dots are seen. Visible dots
distort the image by making it look grainy. Acceptable photos have a
continuous tone image that looks very photo-like.
Also, you are ascribing some sort of universality to the process of
creating legally acceptable ID cards.
As I mentioned before, this Wednesday I will be producing legal ID
cards for the Compton Unified School District Police Department, which
is recognized by the state of California as a duly authorized police
department, complete with powers of arrest and authorization to carry
a concealed weapon while off duty. I will be using a Sony Mavica and
an HP Deskjet 932, along with a heat-sensitive laminator.
I have, in the past, produced ID cards for the Compton College Police
department. Although I have not personally researched the regulations
(if any) regarding the legality of these ID cards, I am pretty certain
that the chiefs of these respective departments is aware of those
requirements, and, when he signed the contract, he assumed
responsibility for their acceptability. I'll be the first to admit
that part of my agreement, and the reason to choose the Mavica was the
capability to record the images directly to a floppy disk, which,
along with the CDR containing the digital images of the ID cards (in
MS Publisher format) will be left with the department to minimize the
possibility of counterfeits.
Bob Ward
>-:>
>-:>If it's so special, and so vital for producing ID cards, why did
>-:>Polaroid stock drop from $50.31 in 1997 to 28 cents as of October
>-:>12,2001?
>-:>
>-:>Why do the major players in the Photo ID industry no longer sell
>-:>Polaroid based ID card systems?
>-:
>-:Because it is less vital- there are digital camaras that provide the same
>-:instant feedback and convenience.
What happened to your argument of unique poses and exposures?
Digital cameras allow the printing of unlimited copies.
Bob Ward
>-:>I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
>-:>twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>-:>into the box" description.
>-:
>-:They were a box camera, whose cheap prism rangefinder was looked into from
>-:above.
Nitpick: Viewfinder, not rangefinder.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:GrapeApe wrote, in <20021124104213...@mb-fe.aol.com>:
>-:
>-:> >I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
>-:> >twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>-:> >into the box" description.
>-:>
>-:> They were a box camera, whose cheap prism rangefinder was looked into from
>-:> above.
>-:
>-:In some models there were two of them (viewfinders not rangefinders)
>-:one on top and one on the side so that it could be used to produce
>-:pictures in landscape or portrait mode.
>-:
>-:Incidentally were those descriptors in use before the days of computer
>-:printers? I don't recall seeing them before then but maybe they come
>-:from professional printing terminology.
I think it comes from classical painting terminology, actually.
Most painted portraits (of individuals, at least) are vertcal - most
painted landscapes are horizontal. (not including miniatures or
decorative plates, of course.)
Blinky the Shark
>>I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
>>twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>>into the box" description.
>
> A brownie was a box, and you looked down into a prism rangefinder from
> the top. A lens may not have been involved for the rangefinder but
> indeed it worked simiarly in that what was used for the rangefiner was
> an image seen from a point a little above the lens actually taking the
> image.
I'm thinking of a little plastic screen for the image, but are you sure
it used a prism? It wasn't very sophisticated, and I'm wondering if it
was perhaps just a mirror, with the inherent image reversal.
> A Brownie was fixed focus (or it has some sort of far or near, either
> or mechanism... there was a grey button on mine to the side that sid
> up or down for some reason.) Being fixed Focus, it didn't need the
> advantages of a twin lens system, where you could use the second lens
> to actually focus the image. When someone is referring to a TLR or
> twin lens reflex, they are usually referring to a something along the
> lines of a Rolleiflex (fixed lens) or Mamiya 220 (interchangeable lens
> system).
Right. Or my Mamiya C3 (interchangeable lens).
> As far as looking down into a box goes, it could be a Hassleblad or
> RB. But if "Box Camera" was in the dictionary, and someone put a
> drawing of a Kodak Brownie next to it, I wouldn't blink.
Same here. Even though I'm blink-capable.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
> GrapeApe wrote, in <20021124104213...@mb-fe.aol.com>:
>
>> >I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
>> >twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>> >into the box" description.
>>
>> They were a box camera, whose cheap prism rangefinder was looked into from
>> above.
>
> In some models there were two of them (viewfinders not rangefinders)
> one on top and one on the side so that it could be used to produce
> pictures in landscape or portrait mode.
Confirm. I was going to mention that in my response to Grape, and I
forgot when I had the keys under my fins.
> Incidentally were those descriptors in use before the days of computer
> printers? I don't recall seeing them before then but maybe they come
> from professional printing terminology.
Good question -- I think I've only seen them since the advent of
computer printing.
--
Blinky
Greg Goss
>> A very common and inexpensive camera still in wide use during the early sixties
>> was the Kodak Brownie. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of. Fixed focus.
>
>I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
>twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
>into the box" description.
I've seen a cheap camera with the look-down-into-it viewfinder. I
think it may have been my older brother's camera in the late sixties.
This was fixed focus, not a reflex.
I own a camera with a look-down viewfinder that is not a reflex
camera. Mine is a classic CKC with the paper pyramid, and any
see-though viewfinder on the body would be too far from the lens.
Greg Goss
>Ok, can someone tell me how to properly load film into this thing? The take
>up spool has a slot in the middle of it that looks like the end of the film
>should fit into it, but the film is wider than the slot. I have to fold the
>corners of the film to get it to fit, but that doesn't seem right. I can't
>see how else the film is supposed to attach to the spool. Is there some
>special technique for this? Do I need a special tool? A rake maybe? Google
>didn't come up with anything helpful, so I turn to afca. Thanks to those who
>answered my first question.
Back when I used spooled film, the end was always tapered a bit so it
could go through the spool.
Blinky the Shark
What's "CKC"?
--
Blinky
chris greville
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:arsc6...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Cubed Kentucky Chicken
HTH
Greg Goss
Canadian Kodak Corporation. I went looking for a model number, and
failed to find one. The prominent logo is just CKC. Presumably the
squarish K-based logo came later.
Nick Spalding
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:53:28 GMT, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >-:GrapeApe wrote, in <20021124104213...@mb-fe.aol.com>:
> >-:
> >-:> >I *think* the Brownies were cheap rangefinder cameras, rather than
> >-:> >twin-lens reflexes (as would be indicated by the "looked straight down
> >-:> >into the box" description.
> >-:>
> >-:> They were a box camera, whose cheap prism rangefinder was looked into from
> >-:> above.
> >-:
> >-:In some models there were two of them (viewfinders not rangefinders)
> >-:one on top and one on the side so that it could be used to produce
> >-:pictures in landscape or portrait mode.
> >-:
> >-:Incidentally were those descriptors in use before the days of computer
> >-:printers? I don't recall seeing them before then but maybe they come
> >-:from professional printing terminology.
>
>
> I think it comes from classical painting terminology, actually.
>
> Most painted portraits (of individuals, at least) are vertcal - most
> painted landscapes are horizontal. (not including miniatures or
> decorative plates, of course.)
Obviously that is the origin but were the words used to describe the
orientation of printed matter in general before the advent of computer
printers?
--
Nick Spalding
GrapeApe
>
>Digital cameras allow the printing of unlimited copies.
Hopefully not by the wrong hands. People are handed some inkjet thingie, not
the digital file to print as many drivers licenses as they want.