Film Negative Archives - Page 2 of 5 - Photo Jottings

Film Negative

Kodak Autographic Special No. 1 sample

Just a quick post to show the amazing quality of the lens on a Kodak Autographic Special No. 1 that's north of a century old.  The lens is a triplet of Zeiss origin, sometimes marketed as a Baush and Lomb Kodak Anastigmat, or Kodak Zeiss Anastigmat.

I have a bunch of these Kodak folding cameras from the turn of the century to the 1930s, and all of them have shutter problems, so plan on getting that fixed if you want to use one for walk around snaps.

The Kodak No. 1 cameras take commonly available 120 film today (6x9 size), as they did way back in the day using wooden spools with metal ends, but they will work just fine with modern film using plastic spools.  Beware of the Kodak No. 1-a, it takes a completely different size film that is no longer available, and it's often listed alongside the no. 1.

I used Kodak Portra 400 for this image, with the aperture set to F/22, at 1/10 second.  My camera shows some signs of a light leak, see the reddish blotches along the left bottom.  Once I get that, and some other issues fixed, I'll do a proper review and get it posted.

I see more resolution in this 6x9 negative...

Read more »

HomeGoods, 1918.

It's April, (in 1918), and time for some spring cleaning, and maybe to replace your worn out stove with a new Detroit Red Star that can fry a thick steak in just 20 minutes!!  How about a One Minute washing maching, bench or floor model, (see it in color here), and some One Minute Cleanser?  The two electric sweepers brands look to be "America" and maybe "Hoover" although it's hard to tell.  I see a couple of clothes wringers at the sides of the image, and a floor scrubber too.

Believe it or not, this exposure probably took about half an hour.  I'm guessing (based on depth of field) F/22-32 with an ASA of around 10-20 in what was probably a dimly lit room.  My own exposures with 5x7 film at ASA 100 in similar lighting are about 8 minutes at F/32-45.

This image comes to us as a 5x7 glass plate negative...

Read more »

Fifty year old film, and a century old camera…

equals a typical digital camera in 2018.  At least in resolution, but ok, maybe not in ease of use.

I took this shot while testing a folding pocket Kodak 3A camera out a couple of years ago.  I used Kodak (Verichrome Pan ASA 80) 122 Roll film that expired in 1971, but probably made in 1969, almost 50 years ago!  You get six 3¼" x 5½" pictures on a roll, (the same area as a 4x5!!), and I bracketed the shots so I'd be sure and get a good one, however, that wasn't really necessary as all the images turned out pretty good.  The shot above was made at F/32, with a one second exposure time.  The sunny 16 rule puts my exposure about four stops longer than normal, and 'normal' being about 1/15s at F/32 with ASA 80 film.

I think I used Ilfosol 3 developer around 4-5 minutes in a tank.  It's expensive to do just one roll at a time, with the film about $25 a roll (a few years ago, now it's around $50-100 a roll depending on age), and developer, stop bath and fixer about half that, so about $5 a picture; save money and get the kodak combination back and use fresh 8x10 sheet film.  After cutting you'll get three shots, (which allows small try developing), that's what I'm doing now, and costs about $3 per shot.

I'll be doing a review of the Kodak 3A in the near future; it's quite a camera, especially when you get one with a good lens like the (Zeiss) Kodak Anastigmat, or Tessar types.

The image above was scanned on a Epson V700, which does a pretty good job, but there is more detail in the original.  Unfortunately, I don't have a good scanner that will accommodate the large 3¼" x 5½" negative.  I could cut it in half, or take a partial using a digital camera and macro lens, but I think I'll wait and show that in the review.

The resolution in the long expired film negative is about what you'd get with a good 24mp digital camera and top quality prime lens today, not bad for a camera from the silent film era.

Anyhow...

Read more »

CineStill 800T film samples

I purchased this roll of CineStill 800T Xpro quite a while back, and finally found a good time to use it, which is at night with a lot of lights.  It's tungsten balanced film, with a color of 3200k, (same as incandescent light bulbs), so if you use it in daylight without a filter, you'll wind up with very bluish images.  It has an odd characteristic of forming red halos and tinged borders around dark to bright transitions; check out the shots below to see what I'm talking about. 

CineStill 800T Xpro is actually Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 color negative film, which has a coating called 'remjet' for use in motion picture cameras; however, Cinestill has removed the coating so it can be developed in standard color print C-41 chemicals, see the info below from CineStill...

Read more »

Kodak Moment #12 Baby St Antoine

Who lives here now?  It’s on the corner of Baby St and St Antoine in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.  My great Uncle Tommy lived here a long time ago, maybe from the 1940s through the 1960s or so.  He bought a new 1957 Chevy Bel Air when they came out, and took it for a spin for all his friends to …

Read more »

Kodak Moment #11, ROK ‘n’ roll

Here’s a snap presumably along (what US servicemen called) US highway 1 in 1952/53, likely near Cheonan, South Korea; unfortunately the exact location has been lost forever.  My Dad took a quick picture after he came across this accident, and said it was being driven by ROK soldiers, who were really pouring the coals to the old deuce and a half.  It looks like they had a little difficulty in navigating the bend in the road.  No word on injuries, but looking at the marks, and the way it rolled over, I would be surprised if they came out with all there extremities still attached.  The US soldier on the  left walking with his back to us was named Victor; name of the little photo bomber in the right lower corner is unknown.

Read more »

Color negative vs slide film

I took two shots of the scene above with two different cameras for some reason, so we’re able to directly compare the two types of film involved.  This unremarkable Green Pier composition was taken just before noon, and naturally the lighting is quite harsh, but I did manage to expose the film properly, which is pretty easy in this lighting …

Read more »

Scroll to Top