StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Over the course of the holidays and my travels in search of interesting things to bestow upon my family and friends, I added a couple of cameras to my collection: a Kodak Baby Brownie (127 format, 1934-1941) and a Kodak Number 2-C Folding Autographic Brownie (116 format, 1917-1925).



Baby Brownie on the left. It's a box camera about the size of a large orange or a regulation baseball, and has no features to speak of. In its favor, it is cute, it has a catchy Art Deco Lite design, and it gives a frame 254% of a 35mm camera's frame does.



The Number 2-C is a bit more sophisticated. A lock next to the bellows rails gives a number of focusing distances between 6 and 100 feet (with metric measurements provided!); a switch above the lens opening selects shutter speed or Bulb or Time mode, and a sliding lever below the opening controls the aperture. The lens is tucked behind the aperture and shutter, so it is protected from the elements when not in use. All that empty space makes the camera light for its size, and when folded up it's comparable to a paperback novel - taller, but narrower. Frame size is 65x110 mm, or 827% of a 35mm camera's frame, and it's also larger than the standard 65mm-square medium format frame.

Both are in usable working order, and film is obtainable, though it would be a matter for specialty outfits and/or home darkroom. I look forward to putting each of these through its paces when I've got a little more disposable income.

Edited for dumb mistakes.

And, since I've prattled on enough about photography of late in AMP, I might as well put up some of what I've got. They're all about half-done, I'd say, between my shortness of skill and the fact that these are 'first draft' scans. No particular order or theme, and I've got more I might put up later. Say what you like about 'em.



Starfighters, Andrews AFB, Maryland



Kineo, St George, Maine



Great Blue Heron, C&O Canal Park, Maryland



Cattails, Mosquito Harbor, Maine



The Pier, Thomaston, Maine



Storefront, Washington, D.C.



Landover Sub, Washington, D.C.



Mustang, Andrews AFB, Maryland



Kitsch, Rockland, Maine



Dinghies, Rockland, Maine

I've got a descendant of that Brownie sitting on my shelf right now

The 2c looks great for its age, but how is the material for the bellows holding up? Doesn't it crack as it dries out over the years? I haven't touched folders myself for fear of light leaks - I can probably fix small seam problems on a metal camera with tape, but folders seem like a whole other kettle of fish.

The bellows look tattered, but that's the leather covering giving way at the corners. The fabric underneath the leather looks to be intact - I took the liberty of disassembling the thing at the antique store before I bought it, and a basic check didn't turn up any noticeable leaks. You'd want to get ahold of the camera before you bought it, open the back wide or take the camera proper right off, and look down the bellows towards a bright light to see how that interior fabric is holding up.

Pinhole-sized leaks can be fixed with a few thin coats of black fabric paint, which is apparently easy to find at hobby or craft stores. Bigger holes require bigger repairs, obviously, and it is still possible to get replacement bellows, though probably not worth it for just a hobby camera unless you are that kind of hobbyist.

I'm still more excited about this now, because my grandfather still has his Speed Graphic which he's invited me to take a look at if I'm interested in, so I'm looking at this as a bit of bellows camera practice.

Also, damn- laptop screens are shit for looking at pictures compared to a standalone monitor.

Inflicting some more photos on this thread.



The Pier, Thomaston, Maine



Landover Sub, Washington, D.C. This was a transparency, and you can see how limited the dynamic range is.



The Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.



Schooner, Rockland, Maine



Heritage, Rockland, Maine



Flypast, Andrews AFB, Maryland



Gulls, East Potomac Park, Washington, D.C.

A medium format film camera? You high quality artsy bastard!

You have some really nice shots there. Some are too yellow in tone (Mustang, Dingies) and some are shaky or washed out (Kineo, St George, Maine is crap for example).
You have some other shots that are fantastic though. (Get back on IM sometime and i'll give you a more detailed commentary, I can't pick shot by shot without making it a running commentary;))

DEATH wrote:A medium format film camera? You high quality artsy bastard!

Pff, nothing artsy about it. Medium format was king before 35mm came along, and large-format plates were king before medium-format came along. The history of film development seems to be of ever-decreasing size, for some reason.

This is my third MF camera, actually - I've got a Rolleicord TLR and a Brownie Hawkeye Flash box. I've got to keep ahead of you kids shooting digital somehow.

Some are too yellow in tone (Mustang, Dingies)...

I'm going to go ahead and blame it on the film - those were Kodak Elite Chrome transparencies, and that film seems to be friendlier to reds or yellows than to blues. I might be able to help that a bit when I re-scan everything.

...and some are shaky or washed out (Kineo, St George, Maine is crap for example).

Heh, consider yourself lucky that I cropped out the massively blown shrubbery in the low foreground for that one. Exposing without benefit of a meter is...interesting.

Shaky, though? No...shutter speeds were too high for that. I think what you are looking at are crops that are small percentages of the actual frame. This makes the film grain larger in proportion to the image you see than otherwise, which gives a kind of fuzzy look. The solution is to have a functioning telephoto longer than 135mm so I can let distant subjects fill the frame without cropping. I almost did until some lousy out-of-stater got in the way, but that is another story.

You have some other shots that are fantastic though. (Get back on IM sometime and i'll give you a more detailed commentary, I can't pick shot by shot without making it a running commentary;))

Thanks. I'll have to remember to fire up IM again one of these days, but if I don't you can always chuck a PM my way or something. I certainly haven't let the reality of rambling on stop me from hectoring you...

Simplicius wrote:

DEATH wrote:A medium format film camera? You high quality artsy bastard!

Pff, nothing artsy about it. Medium format was king before 35mm came along, and large-format plates were king before medium-format came along. The history of film development seems to be of ever-decreasing size, for some reason.

This is my third MF camera, actually - I've got a Rolleicord TLR and a Brownie Hawkeye Flash box. I've got to keep ahead of you kids shooting digital somehow.

I've heard amazing things about MF, never seen shots from one though.

Some are too yellow in tone (Mustang, Dingies)...

I'm going to go ahead and blame it on the film - those were Kodak Elite Chrome transparencies, and that film seems to be friendlier to reds or yellows than to blues. I might be able to help that a bit when I re-scan everything.

Heh, no WB in film .

...and some are shaky or washed out (Kineo, St George, Maine is crap for example).

Heh, consider yourself lucky that I cropped out the massively blown shrubbery in the low foreground for that one. Exposing without benefit of a meter is...interesting.

That wasn't due to exposure, it's just a very dull, grey photo. (There are some other weak ones, but that jumped right out at me).

Shaky, though? No...shutter speeds were too high for that. I think what you are looking at are crops that are small percentages of the actual frame. This makes the film grain larger in proportion to the image you see than otherwise, which gives a kind of fuzzy look. The solution is to have a functioning telephoto longer than 135mm so I can let distant subjects fill the frame without cropping. I almost did until some lousy out-of-stater got in the way, but that is another story.

A. It's not the grain.
B. A telezoom on a medium format? Fat chance. (At least on a meaningful budget, medium/large formats are not meant to be zoomed in or out with ).

You have some other shots that are fantastic though. (Get back on IM sometime and i'll give you a more detailed commentary, I can't pick shot by shot without making it a running commentary;))

Thanks. I'll have to remember to fire up IM again one of these days, but if I don't you can always chuck a PM my way or something. I certainly haven't let the reality of rambling on stop me from hectoring you...

Yes, but you're a better person than me with better writing and editing skills . (Post a long commentary on one of my various threads and I'll reply to one of yours )

I've heard amazing things about MF, never seen shots from one though.

From a thread I did a while back - this is with a pretty poor camera. Better models get the same quality as 35mm.

I'm still more excited about this now, because my grandfather still has his Speed Graphic which he's invited me to take a look at if I'm interested in, so I'm looking at this as a bit of bellows camera practice.

You wouldn't happen what year that Speed Graphic is?

DEATH wrote:I've heard amazing things about MF, never seen shots from one though.

Just samples, but: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9&start=62

That was me taking the Rollei out for a spin for the first time in decades, and my first use of any camera outside the 35mm format, so no great works of art there. The best part about MF as far as I can tell is the size of the negative. That means higher-resolution scans, and bigger enlargements if I was printing in the darkroom. Large format is better still.

Heh, no WB in film .

That just means I have to be well-acquainted with my tools and be prepared to adjust (filters or PP) accordingly. Though you could, say, shoot RAW and then you wouldn't have to care about your camera's white balance either.

That wasn't due to exposure, it's just a very dull, grey photo. (There are some other weak ones, but that jumped right out at me).

Oh right, also: tan cat + tan wood porch + tan wood barrel = monotone yawnfest.

A. It's not the grain.
B. A telezoom on a medium format? Fat chance. (At least on a meaningful budget, medium/large formats are not meant to be zoomed in or out with ).

A. You'll have to point out a specific example then, since I'm not seeing blurs or ghost images which are characteristic of camera shake. Imperfect focus in some cases, maybe, but that's the only other thing I can think of.

B.1. These are all 35mm SLR shots, so of course what lenses I had mattered.
B.2. There's no 'meant to' about it - At the end of the day, medium and large-format are just film sizes. You could shoot glass plates in 35mm size from a little view camera, hypothetically, or you could pick up a very real medium-format SLR, for which you would need interchangeable lenses - like Zeiss' 1700mm f/4 tele for the Hasselblad 203 FE.
B.3. Man, do they even make fixed-focus telephoto lenses for digital cameras, or is it all zooms these days? I'm starting to feel older than I've any right to.

Yes, but you're a better person than me with better writing and editing skills . (Post a long commentary on one of my various threads and I'll reply to one of yours )

I figure you've progressed enough that I can single out your best shots and say what I think you did right without needing to go through every photo and point out what you oughtn't have done - but if you're looking to strike a deal, well, I'll have to head into your newest thread again at some point.

Simplicius wrote:

DEATH wrote:I've heard amazing things about MF, never seen shots from one though.

Just samples, but: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9&start=62

That was me taking the Rollei out for a spin for the first time in decades, and my first use of any camera outside the 35mm format, so no great works of art there. The best part about MF as far as I can tell is the size of the negative. That means higher-resolution scans, and bigger enlargements if I was printing in the darkroom. Large format is better still.

I was expecting more and more sharpness or DR to be honest. MF is to 35mm as Full frame is to crop sensors or a DSLR crop to a compact sensor.
I'm dissapointed! (Not your fault but still ).

Heh, no WB in film .

That just means I have to be well-acquainted with my tools and be prepared to adjust (filters or PP) accordingly. Though you could, say, shoot RAW and then you wouldn't have to care about your camera's white balance either.

I just can't remember/want to shoot with RAW. I take photos for fun and with time constraints and randomly, the added work time and photoshop editing would cramp my workflow too badly, and it's a lot of work for a minimal payoff.

That wasn't due to exposure, it's just a very dull, grey photo. (There are some other weak ones, but that jumped right out at me).

Oh right, also: tan cat + tan wood porch + tan wood barrel = monotone yawnfest.

Yup. Dull and grey. (Unlike that Superb BW shot of the bird in the water for example)

A. It's not the grain.
B. A telezoom on a medium format? Fat chance. (At least on a meaningful budget, medium/large formats are not meant to be zoomed in or out with ).

A. You'll have to point out a specific example then, since I'm not seeing blurs or ghost images which are characteristic of camera shake. Imperfect focus in some cases, maybe, but that's the only other thing I can think of.

B.1. These are all 35mm SLR shots, so of course what lenses I had mattered.

Eh? I thought these were shot with that Kodak MF, my mistake.

B.2. There's no 'meant to' about it - At the end of the day, medium and large-format are just film sizes. You could shoot glass plates in 35mm size from a little view camera, hypothetically, or you could pick up a very real medium-format SLR, for which you would need interchangeable lenses - like Zeiss' 1700mm f/4 tele for the Hasselblad 203 FE.

I thought MF cameras needed their own type of lense. (Very specific lenses of a limited selection).

B.3. Man, do they even make fixed-focus telephoto lenses for digital cameras, or is it all zooms these days? I'm starting to feel older than I've any right to.

YES, you old dumbass . The most expensive lenses are still all primes for some reason, same for zooms.

Yes, but you're a better person than me with better writing and editing skills . (Post a long commentary on one of my various threads and I'll reply to one of yours )

I figure you've progressed enough that I can single out your best shots and say what I think you did right without needing to go through every photo and point out what you oughtn't have done - but if you're looking to strike a deal, well, I'll have to head into your newest thread again at some point.

Meh. Comment a lot and i'll return the favour in one way or another .

Bounty wrote:You wouldn't happen what year that Speed Graphic is?

I'm afraid not - he mentioned it it during a telephone conversation alongside his Mamiya Universal Press. We didn't go down to visit them around Christmastime this year since they came up to see us a week or two prior, so I haven't really had an opportune time to ask.

I'm curious as to what camera he had with him when he was in Italy during the war, though. The Mamiya, the Rollei, and the two SLRs I have all fall between the late 1950s and early 1970s at the oldest - but a Speed Graphic looks pretty darn big, even if he wasn't constantly on the move while he was over there.

I'm curious as to what camera he had with him when he was in Italy during the war, though.

Did he go as a reporter? Man, those negatives have got to be a goldmine...

DEATH wrote:I was expecting more and more sharpness or DR to be honest. MF is to 35mm as Full frame is to crop sensors or a DSLR crop to a compact sensor.
I'm dissapointed! (Not your fault but still ).

Neither of those two things has much to do with format. Dynamic range comes from the chemical properties of the emulsion and is basically constant for each emulsion regardless of brand. Sharpness is, first, the quality of the lens, and second, the size of the film grain. Since the photos I linked you to were shrunk to 0.35 percent of the original scans, the loss of detail makes the matter of sharpness moot anyway.

Film format is just physical size of the frame, and thus how large the film stock has to be cut to cover the frame - and the main benefit is, like I said, resolution - which mostly matters when it comes to making enlargements from the original negative.

Milk by the gallon tastes the same as milk by the pint bottle, y'know. It's just better if you drink a lot of milk.

I just can't remember/want to shoot with RAW. I take photos for fun and with time constraints and randomly, the added work time and photoshop editing would cramp my workflow too badly, and it's a lot of work for a minimal payoff.

It's a bit hasty to say the payoff is minimal, since there is no magic button for great photos - just a lot of careful work. But the time constraint is a big issue.

I'd appreciate pointing out an example of shake, if you had one, since I'm a bit perplexed about that. Also, you missed a chance to point out my shit tilted horizon in the cattail picture.

Bounty wrote:Did he go as a reporter? Man, those negatives have got to be a goldmine...

He's just been a lifelong hobbyist - in service, he repaired radars for the Fifteenth Air Force. He's been going through and digitizing all his old slides lately, though, and he did type up his war diary as well - which has a lot in it about where he went when he wasn't working and what he took photos of while he was there. His first color photos ("pictures in color") were taken in Italy, which stuck in my mind for some reason. That, and how he and his tentmate kept an owl for a time.

Is he planning to publish those or is it strictly a private collection? A photographic diary of WWII Italy with a living witness... that's just begging for a book.

I don't know if he's got plans to publish as yet, since he's got other book projects centered around his paintings (first one printed last autumn). But he's making sure that everything is organized and preserved, so if he doesn't get around to it by golly I'd be game to try.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing such a book, Simplicius. Let him know there are some interested readers, maybe it'll give him the motivation.

Phantasee wrote:I'd definitely be interested in seeing such a book, Simplicius. Let him know there are some interested readers, maybe it'll give him the motivation.

Well, like I said, he's been working on some other book projects too, and only just got the first one published last fall. Since that was put out through a custom publisher, supported by a museum, he's now also got to try and sell the print run, which is not an easy thing to do in both the tourist off-season and economic hard times. Since that first printing set him back $2500 or so, I'd expect he'd want to continue compiling and organizing material for future books and look toward publishing again once he started to get some sales.

Plus, let's not beat about the bush - the man's in his eighties, and while he's not a health catastrophe waiting to happen, he's definitely showing his age. If I was in his position I'd want to be sure I had my photos and writing all in order whether or not I ever published, so it would be useful for someone after me.

More photos for a photo thread:



Drill Press, St. George, Maine



Buzzard's Bay 30, Rockland, Maine



Blue Angel, Andrews AFB, Maryland



Crescent, Washington, D.C.



Interlocking Tower, Washington, D.C.

This new set is very good.
Drill Press seems a bit fost, as though the focus were in the back of the frame or the aperture was quite open. Nice shot though.
Shot after that, Buzzard's bay I like, no idea why, but it's a really nice, geometrically "flowing" shot with good colous.
The crescent shot is weak (Maybe a wider frame of composition, and less "muddyness" might have gotten an excellent shot), and the interlocking tower just ins't interesting or "geometric" (strong shapes) enough.
Blue Angel is a nice shot, although lacks "punch" (closer or farther might improve), as opposed to, say the other airshow shots or that of the 3 flying planes from the beginning. Also, again, it's very "warm".

DEATH wrote:Drill Press seems a bit fost, as though the focus were in the back of the frame or the aperture was quite open. Nice shot though.

I did have a wide aperture, but the focus isn't in the back of the frame (you can see the wall behind the press out of focus, which also puts the depth of field at <3 feet or so). Softness probably has a lot to do with the coating of sawdust all over the press, but that helped to show the shapes a lot because the lighting for that photo was terrible.

Shot after that, Buzzard's bay I like, no idea why, but it's a really nice, geometrically "flowing" shot with good colous.

I'm glad you thought so - I was trying to show off Herreshoff's excellent design and the craftsmanship of the restoration. I wanted to lead the eye to the mounted compass, but it turned out to be pretty small in the frame and I wasn't sure that the lines alone was strong enough to save the photo. I was happy with the exposure, though; several of the shots on that roll came out well in that respect.

Curiously enough, Benjamin Mendlowitz had almost the exact same idea when he shot the BB 30s for Wooden Boat, only I had my photo developed before his was published.

The crescent shot is weak (Maybe a wider frame of composition, and less "muddyness" might have gotten an excellent shot)

I think this shot would have suffered regardless - it was a very hazy evening, and I had only that one shooting angle to work with since I was shooting right through a link in a chain-link fence. I can fiddle around with crops and try making it a B&W so I can work with contrast, but I don't know how much difference it will make.

and the interlocking tower just ins't interesting or "geometric" (strong shapes) enough.

Fair enough. I'm a sucker for old, unusual structures, but that's not enough to make a good photo as opposed to a competent one.

Blue Angel is a nice shot, although lacks "punch" (closer or farther might improve), as opposed to, say the other airshow shots or that of the 3 flying planes from the beginning. Also, again, it's very "warm".

To a certain extent that's because at a major airshow you don't really have the luxury of picking and choosing your angles; if you manage to get a spot right on the flightline you hold that ground like it's your home base. I stood in that spot for five hours or so (and got wicked sunburnt on one side because of it).

I'd like to try some slide films other than EC and see what they can do, but I've been put off by the cost per roll - and my slide-selling and -developing photostore is about to move 45 minutes away, which is a hindrance.