Film Results and which Cameras to keep

I wrote about the Argus HFM II earlier, and it was one of the cameras that I got film back for.  The manual for the camera recommends using 200 ISO film so I used Fuji 200.  I like the results well enough that I will probably use the camera again.  I added the color pictures to the existing gallery. If this camera looks interesting to you, one can usually be found on Ebay for between $10 and $20. 
Argus HFM II Gallery

Since I started using film again about a year ago I have bought a lot of cameras.  When I get the camera I take some pictures using bulk b&w.  If the results from the test roll show that the camera worked okay and had potential I take photos with color film. Since I don't think that I am a collector my plan is to find out which cameras are ones that I will use.  And while I have been in the acquiring and testing phase for a while I think it has come time to go to the sorting phase. 

Some of the cameras are an easy choice.  I have my Canon F1 that I bought in 1974.  It still works well and just from a point of sentiment it would be the last camera that I would sell.  A recent purchase, the Olympus XA, also falls in the keeper category.  Because it fits easily in my pocket and takes excellent pictures I find myself using it a lot. 

A trickier one is the Yashica 124G.  The camera is in very good shape and the results I get from it seem excellent to me.

Still I don't care much for carrying a big camera around or for looking down to frame an image.  One thing I have found out about myself in the last year is that I do like a camera that I can put in my pocket and not notice unless I want to take a picture.  The Yashica 124G sure does not fall into that category, however it may be one that is worth the trouble. 

So that is all for today.  Not sure what I will post next, however it will likely be more about the results from the pictures I just got back.

Waiting on Film

For most of my life if I wanted pictures from a camera I would need to either develop them myself or send them out. There always was a time of maybe hours, maybe days before I could see how my pictures turned out.  And for me at least there was a tendency of focusing on the frustration of the wait and forgetting the pleasures of finally seeing how things turned out.  A pleasure that I think was increased by the wait.  When digital came along I embraced no longer having to wait.  Still I have never felt the pleasure in seeing my pictures load onto my computer that I remember from seeing negatives come out of the developing tank, or from getting that fat pack of pictures in the mail.

Saturday I had the pleasure of getting some pictures back that I had sent off in the mail a few days before.  The feeling for me is very much like I can remember as a child opening Christmas presents. The films were from a variety of cameras taken over a few months time. Like Christmas I expected there would be both some wonders and disappointments. 

I have heard others report feelings similar to mine about getting film back. Although I haven't often heard such feelings enter into the film vs digital debate.  Instead I think that it is taken for granted that quicker is better.  And maybe sometimes it is.  However if you have never done so before try taking some pictures on film and send it off somewhere that makes you wait a few days.  Then see if when your results come back if you experience a pleasure and excitement that made the wait worthwhile.

One set of negatives I got back was from a roll that I had taken last summer and forgot for a while that it was in the camera.  The camera is an Argus STL 1000 with a Cosinon 50mm f/1.8 lens. The film is Fuji 200.

I also got some results from the Argus Dual HFM II that I have written about in an earlier post. The film is Fuji 200.  Although 200 ISO is the recommmended film for this camera, I suspect the a 400 ISO film would work better.

Last results for today are from the Sawyer's Nomad 620.  Whoever I bought this from had loaded it with a re-spooled roll of Porta 160.  I took a couple of pictures with it when I first got the camera and didn't get around to finishing the roll until this winter.

I got the results from 11 rolls of film from 11 different cameras so this is just a small sample.  I would recommend the place I sent the film to.  They do a good job and are inexpensive.  Sharp's Photo

Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim

Aperture: f/11
Shutter:  1/125
Lens:     22mm fixed focus
Battery:  None









The Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim is one of the most famous lo-fi type cameras.  I find its very wide-angle lens with its tendency to vignette very appealing.  If you require corner to corner sharpness the Ultra Wide & Slim isn't the camera for you.  However if you do like the lo-fi look I have found the Ultra Wide & Slim to be one of the most best performers of any of the cameras of this type.  I uploaded a gallery for this camera today.
Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim

There also is a Flickr Group.

The original Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim is long out of production, however it can still easily be found at places like Ebay.  Superheadz makes a newer version called the Slim Devil.  The Slim Devil comes in various colors.  Some people do agonize about paying around $30 for a camera of this type.

March of the Toy Cameras

Toy may be the kindest categorization that these cameras get. Here I am talking about the simple amateur-oriented cameras of the age before digital. Still when looked at in the long arc of human history these cameras are a marvel. If in the middle-ages you had a Polaroid Color Pack and a supply of film you might have been seen as a great wizard or as somebody to be burned at the stake.

Throughout most of the time in which there have been people it has been very hard to make images or save descriptions of the things that mattered to us. I used to wonder why in the Bible there are few if any descriptions of what the people looked like. I thought maybe appearance didn't matter as much to the ancients as much as it seems to matter to us today.  Then I realized that in those times the materials to write on were often expensive and making copies was a pain. So it is likely that only what was essential was recorded. I have not researched this, however I would not be surprised if descriptions of people in literature did not become common until the printing press and cheap paper became available.

And while making and transmitting verbal descriptions used to be hard, making illustrations was even harder.  Even though literacy was rare in the olden days someone with the skill to make a reasonable representative of what he saw was probably even rarer. Today ancient forms of illustration like the reliefs in the Parthenon or the statutory in a Gothic Cathedral are still admired. However I think it is hard for us to appreciate that at one time such illustrations were about the only show in town.

The birth of photography in the 1830's started a progression to where almost anyone could capture an image of what mattered to him.  By the 1950's in the US almost every family had at least one of the simple box cameras that we now call toys.  Most of the time you could take a decent photo with these cameras without a lot of expense or trouble.  You could even make copies of your images to send out to family and friends.  An amazing advance that seems to have been quickly taken for granted and probably is under-appreciated.

Maybe some day in the distant future someone will come across a cache of ancient photos from the 50's and 60's and wonder why all the children were gathered around a circular object with burning candles on it. I imagine even then there will be little appreciation for the cameras that made this puzzle possible.

  


Taken with Kodak Duaflex II

Taken with Kodak Duaflex II




















More Information about the Kodak Duaflex II at Matt's Classic Cameras.

My Photography Year in Review - Part Two

As far as a review of last year I think this will be the second and last part.  At least it serves as the title for one more post.  My history in photography goes back to the 1960's.  My first camera was a 127 camera that the Boy Scouts sold.

After my experience with the old box camera  I decided to see what other film equipment I still had.  One of the first things I found was the Boy Scout camera.  I also found a roll of Verichrome Pan film that had expired in December of 1967.  The film has been at room temperature and from what I have read it is possible that images still could be made with it.  My plan has been to try the old roll of film in the Cub Scout camera.  However while I learned about the possibilities with this old film and camera I haven't felt the inspiration yet to test that knowledge.

My mother, aunt, brother and sister from around 1965. Taken with Cub Scout Camera.












Now, while I am aware of the shortcomings of some of the simple cameras, like my Cub Scout one, I actually always kinda liked some of those less than perfect results.  So when I decided to do film again one of the first things I sought to learn about was the other simple cameras.  One thing I found is that there are many people who have the same interest.

I remember spending quite a bit of time looking at the Junk Store Camera site. I also found that there is a Toy Camera group on Flickr. There also is a whole movement called Lomography based on using often simple cameras and almost seeking out less than technically perfect results.

So my first phase in a return to film was getting and trying out several box-type cameras from mostly the 50's and early sixties.  I also got one of the famous Holgas.

Taken with Agfa Clack.  The Clack was a popular family camera in Europe during the 1950's. 

Taken with Imperial Reflex 620 Duo Lens. Another camera from the 1950's.

And here is one from a Holga. 










These are just a few of the cameras I tried.  I learned that each camera has its own character.  And that character can show even more variety as it interacts with different films.  There can be a lot of surprises with these cameras.  They are probably not the best camera to use when you want a reliable predictable result, however if you enjoy image-making they can be a lot of fun. And at least I find that I am much more emotionally engaged by the images these cameras make than I am by my digital images. I suppose part of it is from my love of history and feeling that I am connecting to the photographic past with these cameras.  I wonder who might have used the camera before me and what images they made.  

So this is as much reviewing as I'm going to do.  Hopefully, I can come up with better and more creative titles as this blog grows. 

My Photography Year in Review - Part One

Around this time last year I was looking at a box of old cameras that my father had purchased at an auction at least twenty years ago. One was a battered box camera that was different from the others in that it used a film that is still made.  The camera was a Kodak No.2 Kodak Rainbow Hawk-Eye Model C.

The Kodak No.2 Kodak Rainbow Hawk-Eye Model C is from the late 1920's and uses 120 film. 120 film is still easy to get.  As you may be able to see from the picture this camera was not in mint condition.  Still the inside was clean and the shutter sounded strong.  Because the lens is behind the shutter in this type of camera it also was in good shape.  So out of curiosity I ordered some film and the chemicals to develop it.  And on one grey Sunday I went out to try a roll of film.  The viewfinder was worthless on this camera so I just held it at waist level and pointed it toward my subject.  The cold outside motivated me to finish the eight pictures pretty quick.  Then for the first time in twenty years I developed some black & white film.  

Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros

The image above is the scan of the first negative that I saw when I hung the roll to dry.  I actually was amazed to see any sort of image from this camera. So I was very happy to see one that was pleasing to me.

Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros

My experience with the Rainbow Hawkeye renewed my interest in film. And that renewed interest in film is my personal biggest photographic development in 2011.  I have been using mostly digital the last several years and actually thought it likely that I would never do film again.  I had forgotten the variety and surprises that film can offer.  And while I still use digital for some things my most satisfying photography this year has been in film.  I plan to do some other posts talking about some of my experience last year in film.  I believe it will be useful to me at least to review what I learned.  So I am glad that I followed my curiosity and found out if that old box camera could still take pictures. 

Sears TLS

From the glory days of the all-metal mechanical SLR is the Sears TLS. The Sears TLS only needs a battery for the exposure meter.  The battery called for in the Sears TLS manual is a no longer made mercury PX625 1.3v. I have found that an SR44 1.5v fits and works fine. You can find out all the details about the Sears TLS at Matt's Classic Cameras .  The Sears TLS is usually very inexpensive on Ebay.  I tend to think it may be the best bargin out there for this type of camera.

The Sears TLS is a very durable reliable body of a camera and the standard 55mm f/1.4 lens seems to be excellent.

I find the standard lens to be especially good for Black & White.

The Sears TLS uses the M42 Pentax lens mount so along with its great standard lens it can use the wide variety of lenses made for that mount.

There are a few more images in my Sears TLS Gallery
The color images are from the Sears 28mm lens.