Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > 120 film RF Folders

120 film RF Folders 120/220 Format Folding Rangefinders, including the various classic Zeiss Ikontas, Voigtlander Bessas, and their Ruskie copies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

6x11 folders?
Old 10-01-2008   #1
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
6x11 folders?

I saw a reference in a Jason Schneider column to, yes, a 6x11 folder. But it didn't take 120--rather, one of the now-gone rollfilm formats. 620 maybe?

I believe he was referring to one of the Ikontas, but did other cameras use this aspect ratio? Can any of them be converted to use 120? I want one.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #2
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
From (increasingly fallible) memory, 116/616, ie 2-1/2 x 4-1/4 inch or thereabouts. No, you can't convert them.

On the other hand, again from increasingly fallible memory, a few cameras and rollfilm backs can be opened out to 56x100+mm, e.g. MPP rollfilm backs.

Cheers,

R.

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 10-01-2008 at 13:06. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #3
Jerry Thirsty
Registered User
 
Jerry Thirsty is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 50
Kodak made a lot of (now defunct) film formats, and a lot of folding cameras in those formats; see:

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

If you have decent mechanical skills, you can try finding a likely camera on eBay and converting it to work with 120 film. There have been a number of examples I've seen on other forums, but I don't have them bookmarked.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #4
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 2,591
During the 1920's serious amateur photographers would more often than not make contact prints using Velox Lamplight paper. Photographic enlargers were far and few between.

Roll film sizes ranged up to 4x5. The larger the negative - the larger print when contact printed.

Someone who posts over on photo.net has been converting the old Kodak Autographic 3a to accept 120 film. I believe his name is Minh. The original Autographic 3a format was 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 inch.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus a Voigtlander Vito II and Vito BR
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #5
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
No, you can't convert them.
Yes you can. The question is whether it is worth it. Usually, with european cameras, if it came in 116/616, it also came in 120/620. Anyway, if you can find an old half-frame mask (or make one) for a 116/616 camera, it is a simple matter to go to a hobby shop, buy a length of square cross-section tubing, and epoxy it to the inside of the half-frame mask to make a pair of 2.25 inch film rails. Next you use epoxy putty to extend the film spool holders. Actually, that's the easy part. The hard part is getting backing paper with numbers that will match up right with the frames.

Last edited by FallisPhoto : 10-01-2008 at 15:49.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #6
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 2,591
On the big Autographic that used 118 film, extensions to hold the spools dead center, plus a mask and I believe a new red window must be installed. You then shoot 120 at frames 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, but not 12.

The goal is kind of a panoramic look and proper framing is a bear. A 4x5 with sheet film anyone?
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus a Voigtlander Vito II and Vito BR
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #7
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 2,591
Yep, but an Ikonta D is a nicer camera than an Autographic. The Autographic uses a very small look down mirrored finder to compose with.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus a Voigtlander Vito II and Vito BR
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2008   #8
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
 
Abbazz's Avatar
 
Abbazz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Karori (Aotearoa)
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solinar View Post
Yep, but an Ikonta D is a nicer camera than an Autographic.
There is a nice one on eBay right now: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...hlink:middle:u

It comes from an expensive seller but this particular camera has been offered for sale unsuccessfully for a few months, so the price has come down quite a bit. It comes with the Tessar lens and the 5x6.5 mask, which could be useful to convert the camera to 120 film, as stated by FallisPhoto.

Cheers!

Abbazz
__________________
Il n'y a rien dans le monde qui n'ait son moment décisif, et le chef-d'œuvre de la bonne conduite est de connaître et de prendre ce moment. - Cardinal de Retz

The 6x9 Photography Online Resource


Last edited by Abbazz : 10-02-2008 at 00:16.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #9
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallisPhoto View Post
Yes you can. The question is whether it is worth it. Usually, with european cameras, if it came in 116/616, it also came in 120/620. Anyway, if you can find an old half-frame mask (or make one) for a 116/616 camera, it is a simple matter to go to a hobby shop, buy a length of square cross-section tubing, and epoxy it to the inside of the half-frame mask to make a pair of 2.25 inch film rails. Next you use epoxy putty to extend the film spool holders. Actually, that's the easy part. The hard part is getting backing paper with numbers that will match up right with the frames.
Of course you're right; I was suffering from hardening of the categories, plus an unwillingness to go to all that trouble -- especially, as you say, with the backing paper.

But I think you can still buy one or two emulsions in 116/616. Films for Classics is gone, I think, but I'm reasonably sure I saw them advertised somewhere else. Anyone else remember?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #10
Muggins
Registered User
 
Muggins's Avatar
 
Muggins is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Thirsty View Post
Kodak made a lot of (now defunct) film formats, and a lot of folding cameras in those formats; see:

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html
At risk of disagreeing with Solinar, who almost certainly knows a great deal more than I do, the table above states that the biggest size was 112 at 7x5 inches. I don't know how many shots you got on a roll, but anyone who could develop that stuff was guaranteed a second trade as a paper hanger!

Adrian
__________________
I love pretending that I know what I'm doing.... (Pete Herbert)

If http://www.flickr.com/photos/gray1720/ are the ones I let people see, what on earth are the rest like?

Last edited by Muggins : 10-02-2008 at 01:48. Reason: Screwed code...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #11
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 2,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggins View Post
At risk of disagreeing with Solinar, who almost certainly knows a great deal more than I do, the table above states that the biggest size was 112 at 7x5 inches. I don't know how many shots you got on a roll, but anyone who could develop that stuff was guaranteed a second trade as a paper hanger!

Adrian
Yes it does and I'm sure there was one, but I've never held one and I still haven't looked at the above table.

The largest roll film folder that I ever had a chance to have a gander at was an Ansco from about WWI Era. That camera was 4x5 roll film, had a feature for sheet film and ground glass, in addition to roll film.

I'm not about to do a conversion, but if I was to convert a camera - I'd want to do it with the more modern Ikonta D suggested by Andrew in Adelaide, mainly because of the Zeiss optics, more modern Compur shutter, front standard design and all-metal construction.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus a Voigtlander Vito II and Vito BR
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

70mm film
Old 10-02-2008   #12
Ernst Dinkla
Registered User
 
Ernst Dinkla is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 303
70mm film

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbazz View Post
There is a nice one on eBay right now: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...hlink:middle:u

It comes from an expensive seller but this particular camera has been offered for sale unsuccessfully for a few months, so the price has come down quite a bit. It comes with the Tessar lens and the 5x6.5 mask, which could be useful to convert the camera to 120 film, as stated by FallisPhoto.

Cheers!

Abbazz
If this one is based on 116 film you could use 70 mm film without sprocket holes and make backing paper yourself + the creation of rolls. Not easy but at least it keeps that camera untouched. Not much 70 mm film around though. Few European folder manufacturers that went with Kodak's folly format changes but Kodak owned and Ansco-Agfa. I'm surprised Zeiss did.

Ernst Dinkla
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #13
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
I guess what I am after is the possibility of a 120 camera that will do the 6x11 aspect ratio. There's the Holga pinhole camera, of course, and I believe there was a Voigtlander pinhole pano as well.

What about taking a 6x6 or 6x7 and making a new 6x11 mask for it? Would the lens have enough coverage? You could just advance twice between frames.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #14
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
 
Abbazz's Avatar
 
Abbazz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Karori (Aotearoa)
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
I guess what I am after is the possibility of a 120 camera that will do the 6x11 aspect ratio.
If I recall correctly, the original Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100 delivered images measuring more than 90mm long on 120 film.

You could also use a 6x12 rollfilm back on a 4x5 Speed Graphic or modify any folding camera using larger rollfilm to accept 120 spools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
What about taking a 6x6 or 6x7 and making a new 6x11 mask for it? Would the lens have enough coverage? You could just advance twice between frames.
A 6x6 or 6x7 will not have enough coverage for 6x11.

Cheers!

Abbazz
__________________
Il n'y a rien dans le monde qui n'ait son moment décisif, et le chef-d'œuvre de la bonne conduite est de connaître et de prendre ce moment. - Cardinal de Retz

The 6x9 Photography Online Resource

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #15
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbazz View Post
You could also use a 6x12 rollfilm back on a 4x5 Speed Graphic or modify any folding camera using larger rollfilm to accept 120 spools.
OK, bear with me, because I have never even looked into 4x5 stuff before. You're saying I can buy something like this, and attach it to a Speed Graphic? Any Speed Graphic? What, would you say, is the best affordable camera body to do this with?

I didn't know this was an available option--I would LOVE to do it.

Would I need to buy some kind of viewfinder?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #16
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
 
Abbazz's Avatar
 
Abbazz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Karori (Aotearoa)
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
You're saying I can buy something like this, and attach it to a Speed Graphic? Any Speed Graphic? What, would you say, is the best affordable camera body to do this with?
This Chinese 6x12 rollfilm back will work with any 4x5 camera that has a Graflok back (also called "universal back"). You will need a 4x5 Speed Graphic, Century Graphic or Crown Graphic not older than approx. 1950, because older models were fitted with a different back, which is not compatible with modern rollfilm 6x12 backs. Here's a link to the ultimate resource about Speed Graphic cameras:
http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/

Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
Would I need to buy some kind of viewfinder?
There are some 6x12 viewfinders, most of them being quite expensive. Fotoman sells a 6x12 viewfinder for $200. By the way, Fotoman also has the 6x12 camera to match the viewfinder.

Cheers,

Abbazz
__________________
Il n'y a rien dans le monde qui n'ait son moment décisif, et le chef-d'œuvre de la bonne conduite est de connaître et de prendre ce moment. - Cardinal de Retz

The 6x9 Photography Online Resource

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #17
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
Excellent, thanks so much! I think I would first try using my CV 15mm Heliar viewfinder, and masking the top and bottom in my head. That ought to get me close.

That Fotoman camera looks awesome.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #18
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
One more question, does the Mamiya Universal take these backs, too?

EDIT: answered my own question, looks like they will fit, but the lens won't cover the whole frame.

Last edited by squirrel$$$bandit : 10-02-2008 at 06:33.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #19
Ernst Dinkla
Registered User
 
Ernst Dinkla is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
One more question, does the Mamiya Universal take these backs, too?

EDIT: answered my own question, looks like they will fit, but the lens won't cover the whole frame.
Depends on which lens. The Mamiya 75mm wide angle like used on the Polaroid 600 but also available with the Mamiya Press mount probably covers it. Then there is the question whether the camera box itself doesn't obscure the light rays at the widest angle.

Anyone used that Chinese 12x6 holder ? Quality ? It looks like it could be adapted (without Graflex adapter) to a converted Polaroid Pathfinder and be less bulky in total than a Graflex combo. Rangefinder use of course like it should be discussed here. I have some Pathfinder bodies in several stages of conversion.

Ernst Dinkla
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #20
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
One more question, does the Mamiya Universal take these backs, too?

EDIT: answered my own question, looks like they will fit, but the lens won't cover the whole frame.
From time to time on ebay I have seen a seller with plans to convert Mamiya bodies to 9x12. From his posts, the top (therefore the rangefinder) is removed amoung other things. I don't remember what was used for lenses, but I think it was fitted with a mount to add 4x5 lenses.

I am not positive, but I think I remember reading once that the 50mm lens provided coverage beyond the 6x9, but it may not have been as much as 9x12.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2008   #21
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Of course you're right; I was suffering from hardening of the categories, plus an unwillingness to go to all that trouble -- especially, as you say, with the backing paper.

But I think you can still buy one or two emulsions in 116/616. Films for Classics is gone, I think, but I'm reasonably sure I saw them advertised somewhere else. Anyone else remember?

Cheers,

R.
Film For Classics is still around, and they still have 116 and 616 film from time to time. They won't say what it will cost though. They are probably trying to avoid giving their customers sticker shock induced heart failure. http://www.filmforclassics.com/
Central Camera also has it, if you don't mind paying $37.95 per roll for it. http://www.centralcamera.com/Film/Fi...sd-0-pg-1.html I believe it is made from cut-down rolls of aerial photography film.

Personally, I think it would be a lot less expensive, and a little less bother too, to just go ahead and convert the camera to 120. Seriously, if using epoxy putty is too much trouble for you, you can just convert two nickels into spacers. You cut slots in the nickels that will engage the winding lug and then drill and tap two 1/8 inch holes on either side of the slots where you can put two small screws to engage the slots in the ends of 120 film spools.

Last edited by FallisPhoto : 10-02-2008 at 16:21.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2008   #22
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallisPhoto View Post
Film For Classics is still around, and they still have 116 and 616 film from time to time. They won't say what it will cost though. They are probably trying to avoid giving their customers sticker shock induced heart failure. http://www.filmforclassics.com/
Central Camera also has it, if you don't mind paying $37.95 per roll for it. http://www.centralcamera.com/Film/Fi...sd-0-pg-1.html I believe it is made from cut-down rolls of aerial photography film.

Personally, I think it would be a lot less expensive, and a little less bother too, to just go ahead and convert the camera to 120. Seriously, if using epoxy putty is too much trouble for you, you can just convert two nickels into spacers. You cut slots in the nickels that will engage the winding lug and then drill and tap two 1/8 inch holes on either side of the slots where you can put two small screws to engage the slots in the ends of 120 film spools.

That's a clever thought. Thanks.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2008   #23
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbazz View Post
You will need a 4x5 Speed Graphic, Century Graphic or Crown Graphic not older than approx. 1950, because older models were fitted with a different back, which is not compatible with modern rollfilm 6x12 backs.
There were rollfilm backs for those too, but they are very scarce these days and are collector's items in themselves. In several years of trawling ebay, I think I have seen two of them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-11-2008   #24
BILLC
Registered User
 
BILLC is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Amity, Oregon
Posts: 85
I have converted a 3a autographic to use 120 film. The 3a takes 122 film that is 1" wider than 120. I got 4 thin 1/2" brass stock from the model shop and a 1/8" square to connect them at the ends. Cut 2 pieces of brass to fit in the film plane, the film will ride on it, and the other 2 longer so that the ride on the old film plane, 1/4" wider than the first. Stick them together, I used solder but epoxy or super glue would work and connect them with the 1/8" square bits at the ends of the film plane. This all should drop in the film plane. I used a thin piece of aluminum as a pressure plate with a small hole cut so that when the autographic window is opened you can view the numbers for 4.5mm, or 16 on a roll. This plate will also block the ruby window for 122 film. You can put 120 film in the feed end with spacers to center it and use a 122 take up spool but you will have to unload in the dark. I made a take up spool by glueing (pipe cement) the cut ends of a 120 spool on to another 120 spool to make it as long as a 122 spool. The autographic window is at the end of the frame so I start with the start of the film on the roll, each film is different
so look at an old paper to find that spot. You wind on 3 numbers between exposures and get 2 1/4" by 5 1/8" negatives. The last is a little short but still good.

Bill
__________________
So It Goes
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2008   #25
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallisPhoto View Post
Film For Classics is still around, and they still have 116 and 616 film from time to time. They won't say what it will cost though. They are probably trying to avoid giving their customers sticker shock induced heart failure. http://www.filmforclassics.com/
Central Camera also has it, if you don't mind paying $37.95 per roll for it. http://www.centralcamera.com/Film/Fi...sd-0-pg-1.html I believe it is made from cut-down rolls of aerial photography film.

Personally, I think it would be a lot less expensive, and a little less bother too, to just go ahead and convert the camera to 120. Seriously, if using epoxy putty is too much trouble for you, you can just convert two nickels into spacers. You cut slots in the nickels that will engage the winding lug and then drill and tap two 1/8 inch holes on either side of the slots where you can put two small screws to engage the slots in the ends of 120 film spools.
Interesting: thanks. Film for Classics were impossible to find about 3 years ago when Frances was doing the last Shutterbug Buyers' Guide and we'd not bothered to look since, on the ground that few firms rise from the dead. Evidently (like a Norwegian Blue) they were just resting...

The main thing is that I think I'd rather put a 6x12 back on a 4x5 camera (I have both) or possibly buy a 6x12 Horseman ir Linhof, so I don't have much incentive to adapt an elderly camera. I know there are some people who really enjoy this sort of thing, but as far as I am concerned, it's a separate hobby from photography, and one that holds no appeal for me. Thirty years ago, when there was no choice, I was much more interested in adaptations; now, well... I'd rather just take pictures.

Cheers,

Roger
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2008   #26
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
I know there are some people who really enjoy this sort of thing, but as far as I am concerned, it's a separate hobby from photography, and one that holds no appeal for me.
Building the camera is not photography, but using it is, and I think it is a lot more satisfying using a camera you have rebuilt or restored than one you just bought.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2008   #27
chippy
foo was here
 
chippy's Avatar
 
chippy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post

The main thing is that I think I'd rather put a 6x12 back on a 4x5 camera (I have both) or possibly buy a 6x12 Horseman ir Linhof, so I don't have much incentive to adapt an elderly camera. I know there are some people who really enjoy this sort of thing, but as far as I am concerned, it's a separate hobby from photography, and one that holds no appeal for me. Thirty years ago, when there was no choice, I was much more interested in adaptations; now, well... I'd rather just take pictures.

Cheers,

Roger
Dear Roger,

I can appreciate that simply putting a 6x12 back on is easier, more particularly seeing how you already have one. However, no doubt most people considering this don’t have one and someone would need to be very keen on the 6x12 format to want to invest in a Horseman.

I can also appreciate that if you 'have been there, done that' with making adaption’s to cameras it holds no appeal for you now. Everybody is different however, and to play devils advocate some could argue going to trouble and time to lug around and set up a 4x5 with 6x12 back wastes time compared to say a Horseman; and so, as a paradigm such as yours, that part of it could be considered not a part photography either and the person with the Horseman can take the high morel ground and say 'I would rather just take pictures'.

If we can consider photography is a form of art akin to painting for the moment, then on one end of the scale we could say some of the indigenous Australians artists go to a lot of trouble and preparation to collect the pigments for the paints that they are going to use, substrates to paint on, and making their own brushes; they feel this is all part of the process of painting and puts them more in touch with what they are creating. On the other hand many people just go and purchase the pigments, paint and brushes because they would rather just make pictures and can’t be bothered with the hassle...so which one is more involved in the hobby of making pictures and which one isn’t? Of course it could be easily argued the person making their own equipment and supplies has a greater synergy with the environment and thus the picture being created. The reality is they are both making pictures though and can be called artists. on the other end of the scale entirely Leonardo Da Vinci (just about my all time favourite person for many reasons not just art) being a ‘Master’ was said to have his apprentices do a great deal of work for him, in as much its often said he had them fill in the basics of the picture and he would do the finer details. Perhaps in your case you have ‘been there and done that’ (having plenty of experience with older equipment) and are more like (or at the stage of) a Leonardo Da Vinci type artist.


To draw a slightly longer bow, writing about photography could be considered part of the hobby, you or some others may wish to separate it and that may be on the basis that some people write about photography with different agenda’s driving their thoughts as they write; perhaps advertising or promoting a particular product. But for many (even if they don’t know it) they write or talk about photography (even on these forums) because the human mind uses this method as tool for further creative thoughts/inspiration and is a memory retention mechanism, in this respect writing or talking about photography, can be considered part of photography as it leads to the next picture being made. Sometimes ‘a cigar is just a cigar’ of course and someone wants to simply know an answer to a question.

However, back to the point at hand of renovating, adapting and using a vintage camera; there is no reason why for many people taking the time to adapt or use a vintage camera, even though it is more time consuming before the actual image is taken is any less a part of the hobby (and could easily be argued its more). It can simply imply that person is taking a more holistic approach to photography and wishes to use or have an understanding and appreciation of the history, old lenses (different brushes), equipment, techniques and the people that used them. This in turn gives them a different inspiration and insight into the next picture being made. Some artists (Pro Hart, recently passed on, comes to mind) produced staggering amounts of pictures on average per year (akin to just taking pictures), while other notable artists produce but a few a year. I would suggest that if someone wants to take the time and effort to restore or adapt a vintage camera for the purpose of creating a picture then it is at the very least a significant part of the hobby.

‘Just taking pictures’ is often mentioned on RFF and in some instances as some sort of rebuke to others (not saying you), but I would suggest that perhaps there is a bit more to photography than just taking pictures


cheers
Andrew






..

Last edited by chippy : 10-12-2008 at 17:58.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #28
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
You might want to take a look here:

http://kodak.3106.net/index.php?p=516

He just updated it a few days ago, complete with a very thorough pdf file (find it on that web page) with instructions and photos and such. More than I'm capable of, but I might consider calling on the services of someone who would be willing to do it for a tad less than my entire left arm and leg, perhaps just a finger up to the knuckle.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #29
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 3,909
For about $325 or less, you can buy a Crown Graphic 4x5 camera. Load it with some Arista 100 ISO from Freestyle (50 sheets / $24) Cut the top and bottom off the sheet after developing (or make a mask for some 4x5 sheet film holders). No need to purchase an exteral viewfinder and no need to purchase a roll film adapter.

Inexpensive solution for panorama photograpy and you also have a 4x5. How hard is that?
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #30
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan normandale View Post
For about $325 or less, you can buy a Crown Graphic 4x5 camera. Load it with some Arista 100 ISO from Freestyle (50 sheets / $24) Cut the top and bottom off the sheet after developing (or make a mask for some 4x5 sheet film holders). No need to purchase an exteral viewfinder and no need to purchase a roll film adapter.

Inexpensive solution for panorama photograpy and you also have a 4x5. How hard is that?
Cost of 4x5 film versus 120 roll film?

Cost of tanks, etc, plus more developer to process said 4x5 sheets?

The 'fiddle factor' of learning to use 4x5 sheet film for one who has not done so before, versus loading roll film into a camera?

It could be very hard. Or not. YMMV.

A converted 616 camera should cost something like ten dollars, I'm guessing. Maybe as high as $50 for a really prime example with a nice coated tessar-style lens. And it fits in a (OK, a large) coat pocket.

The question, I guess is not 'how do I get the biggest possible negative' but rather, 'what is a fun/cheap way to do that'? Journey versus destination, as always.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #31
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
The question, I guess is not 'how do I get the biggest possible negative' but rather, 'what is a fun/cheap way to do that'? Journey versus destination, as always.
Exactly! I don't have ten cameras because I need them to take good pictures, that's for sure. I just like trying out new/different/cheap stuff.

That said, I wouldn't mind getting into 4x5 someday.
  Reply With Quote

Ikonta Super D
Old 11-10-2008   #32
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,952
Ikonta Super D

The frame opening in an Ikonta Super D was roughly 6.5X11cm, and it was a rangefinder in the Ikonta Super line. It originally used 616 film. Too wide in the film gate for 120 respooling unless you masked the gate down for width.

Last edited by kuzano : 11-10-2008 at 11:18.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #33
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
A converted 616 camera should cost something like ten dollars, I'm guessing. Maybe as high as $50 for a really prime example with a nice coated tessar-style lens. And it fits in a (OK, a large) coat pocket.
$10? Only if you do the conversion yourself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #34
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 3,909
Mabelsound…. “Jason Schneider column.. a 6x11 folder. …I believe he was referring to one of the Ikontas, … Can any of them be converted to use 120? I want one.”

Abbazz “the original Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100 delivered images measuring more than 90mm long on 120 film…..You could also use a 6x12 rollfilm back on a 4x5 Speed Graphic or modify any folding camera using larger rollfilm to accept 120 spools.

Mabelsound “OK, bear with me, because I have never even looked into 4x5 stuff before. You're saying I can buy something like this, and attach it to a Speed Graphic? Any Speed Graphic? What, would you say, is the best affordable camera body to do this with? I didn't know this was an available option--I would LOVE to do it. Would I need to buy some kind of viewfinder?”

Bill I agree with you,however I was going along with the direction suggested by mabelsound , then Abbazz which prompted mabelsound to consider 4x5. I just didn’t see the need for the viewfinder/attachment. My suggestion was save the $$ outlay on those items and just crop. The film could probably provide at least two 2”x5” sheets from each 4x5 so he would get 100 shots for $24. I think 120 roll film might not be any less.

Having fun with cameras is ‘having fun’ with cameras and it’s a fine thing to do. I know lots of RFF ‘ers who get enjoyment from that.
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #35
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallisPhoto View Post
$10? Only if you do the conversion yourself.
OK. Oh drat, I need 10 characters. OK again.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #36
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan normandale View Post
Bill I agree with you,however I was going along with the direction suggested by mabelsound , then Abbazz which prompted mabelsound to consider 4x5. I just didn’t see the need for the viewfinder/attachment. My suggestion was save the $$ outlay on those items and just crop. The film could probably provide at least two 2”x5” sheets from each 4x5 so he would get 100 shots for $24. I think 120 roll film might not be any less.
Everyone has to do their own math, I guess. In my case, I have no 4x5 processing stuff, so there is the cost of buying that - cheap though it may be - on eBay, etc. I suspect there may be a few more emulsions available on 120 roll than on 4x5, but I don't know for sure. As to cost, I dunno. I get my 120 roll film pretty cheap. But whatever works, works.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #37
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by chippy View Post
Dear Roger,

I can appreciate that simply putting a 6x12 back on is easier, more particularly seeing how you already have one. However, no doubt most people considering this don’t have one and someone would need to be very keen on the 6x12 format to want to invest in a Horseman.

I can also appreciate that if you 'have been there, done that' with making adaption’s to cameras it holds no appeal for you now. Everybody is different however, and to play devils advocate some could argue going to trouble and time to lug around and set up a 4x5 with 6x12 back wastes time compared to say a Horseman; and so, as a paradigm such as yours, that part of it could be considered not a part photography either and the person with the Horseman can take the high morel ground and say 'I would rather just take pictures'.

If we can consider photography is a form of art akin to painting for the moment, then on one end of the scale we could say some of the indigenous Australians artists go to a lot of trouble and preparation to collect the pigments for the paints that they are going to use, substrates to paint on, and making their own brushes; they feel this is all part of the process of painting and puts them more in touch with what they are creating. On the other hand many people just go and purchase the pigments, paint and brushes because they would rather just make pictures and can’t be bothered with the hassle...so which one is more involved in the hobby of making pictures and which one isn’t? Of course it could be easily argued the person making their own equipment and supplies has a greater synergy with the environment and thus the picture being created. The reality is they are both making pictures though and can be called artists. on the other end of the scale entirely Leonardo Da Vinci (just about my all time favourite person for many reasons not just art) being a ‘Master’ was said to have his apprentices do a great deal of work for him, in as much its often said he had them fill in the basics of the picture and he would do the finer details. Perhaps in your case you have ‘been there and done that’ (having plenty of experience with older equipment) and are more like (or at the stage of) a Leonardo Da Vinci type artist.


To draw a slightly longer bow, writing about photography could be considered part of the hobby, you or some others may wish to separate it and that may be on the basis that some people write about photography with different agenda’s driving their thoughts as they write; perhaps advertising or promoting a particular product. But for many (even if they don’t know it) they write or talk about photography (even on these forums) because the human mind uses this method as tool for further creative thoughts/inspiration and is a memory retention mechanism, in this respect writing or talking about photography, can be considered part of photography as it leads to the next picture being made. Sometimes ‘a cigar is just a cigar’ of course and someone wants to simply know an answer to a question.

However, back to the point at hand of renovating, adapting and using a vintage camera; there is no reason why for many people taking the time to adapt or use a vintage camera, even though it is more time consuming before the actual image is taken is any less a part of the hobby (and could easily be argued its more). It can simply imply that person is taking a more holistic approach to photography and wishes to use or have an understanding and appreciation of the history, old lenses (different brushes), equipment, techniques and the people that used them. This in turn gives them a different inspiration and insight into the next picture being made. Some artists (Pro Hart, recently passed on, comes to mind) produced staggering amounts of pictures on average per year (akin to just taking pictures), while other notable artists produce but a few a year. I would suggest that if someone wants to take the time and effort to restore or adapt a vintage camera for the purpose of creating a picture then it is at the very least a significant part of the hobby.

‘Just taking pictures’ is often mentioned on RFF and in some instances as some sort of rebuke to others (not saying you), but I would suggest that perhaps there is a bit more to photography than just taking pictures


cheers
Andrew






..
Dear Andrew,

Sorry for the delay in replying: I don't know how I missed your post.

The only difference in our analysis is whether adapting cameras is a separate hobby, or a different part of the same hobby. For me, it's the former. For others, it may be the same.

I'd not argue that adaptations, creating from scratch, coating one's own materials, etc., can deepen or broaden one's understanding: I've done most of that bit (well, not grinding my own lenses, but I've made pinholes and used magnifying glasses). All I meant was that having tried it, I've either become lazy or simply changed my emphasis.

A lot of people think they 'ought' to do this, that or the other thing. Some of the time, I'm just saying that 'ought' is of limited application in many spheres of life.

Cheers,

Roger
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #38
chippy
foo was here
 
chippy's Avatar
 
chippy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 778
i thought the spirit of this thread was using (or whether they can be used) old defunct film formats....i didnt re-read it all, especially that w^nker chippy that wrote that huge post...cant be bothered reading that!

but most all of those old formats can be used...it is fun....if not just to see the results from some of the old lenses, not to mention you get panaramic shots.

like i mentioned near the begining somewhere, the super ikonta D is a choice camera for this, seeing how it already has RF...but fun can be had with almost any old format camera.....the results can be very pleasing/surprising
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #39
chippy
foo was here
 
chippy's Avatar
 
chippy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Andrew,

Sorry for the delay in replying: I don't know how I missed your post.

The only difference in our analysis is whether adapting cameras is a separate hobby, or a different part of the same hobby. For me, it's the former. For others, it may be the same.

I'd not argue that adaptations, creating from scratch, coating one's own materials, etc., can deepen or broaden one's understanding: I've done most of that bit (well, not grinding my own lenses, but I've made pinholes and used magnifying glasses). All I meant was that having tried it, I've either become lazy or simply changed my emphasis.

A lot of people think they 'ought' to do this, that or the other thing. Some of the time, I'm just saying that 'ought' is of limited application in many spheres of life.

Cheers,

Roger
Hi Roger,
just happens we are here at the same time,

no big deal...i tend to think creating or adapting/working on a camera can be a part, and more of...making a picture (like making a brush to paint with), but that can be semantic, each to their own, no big deal
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2008   #40
FallisPhoto
Registered User
 
FallisPhoto's Avatar
 
FallisPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
OK. Oh drat, I need 10 characters. OK again.
On the other hand, it isn't that hard to do if you know how. It might only cost you another $10 to $20 in materials. If you don't know how to do it though, count on $100+. Nothing in photography is cheap and that includes the people who work on our gear.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:37.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.