#1 Autographic Kodak Jr.

dazedgonebye

dazedgonebye

Veteran
Local time
11:33 PM
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
3,932
Just a couple from the horse show the other day. This was a very interesting camera to shoot. The little viewfinder made anything more than pointing in the right general direction tough to predict.

FP4 in Barry's two bath formula.
1/50th, f22

3284852913_97c9dcd861_o.jpg


3284852865_890fac36a1_o.jpg


The camera....

3251724874_3d5818b64b_o.jpg
 
Hey Steve,

How many weird looks did you get toting that old gem around...
I guess at f/22 focusing not a big problem...
Nice shots by the way...
 
What happened to the stylus and holder? They are usually on the left of the front standard, but that looks like they were never there. Is there a holder we are not seeing somewhere else?
 
Does the look down mirrored finder make this the grand daddy of the twin lens reflex camera? :p:p:p

I have one of these finders on a Billy Record II. The image is pretty tiny.

Kudos for putting the #1 Autographic Jr. through its paces. I know nothing about the camera, but it seems to be working.

Does the entire front standard move to focus or is it a fixed-focus camera?
 
Solinar said:
Does the entire front standard move to focus or is it a fixed-focus camera?
Click to expand...

That thing on the bed (that you can just see the end of, under the corner of the name plate) is a focusing scale. The whole front standard is manually moved along the rail to focus.
 
No stylus with this one. I've got the original case, in pretty good shape.
Yes, that little mirror finder is just this side of useless.

Nice experience really, shooting with a 90 year old camera. Not sure anyone noticed me. Then again, I carry around old stuff all the time and I wouldn't notice them noticing.
 
Is there writing on the rim of the lens? "Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectilinear"? If so, you can mount that lens on your Crown Graphic. Coverage to spare! The front element looks exactly like the one I'm using on my Zone VI.

Great work, BTW. What size film do you use in the camera? Is the aperture scale the old US or the modern scale?
 
No markings to indicate the lens maker...unfortunately.

This one takes 120 film, which makes it a find as far as I'm concerned. I can actually shoot it.
 
dazedgonebye said:
No stylus with this one. I've got the original case, in pretty good shape.
Yes, that little mirror finder is just this side of useless.

Nice experience really, shooting with a 90 year old camera. Not sure anyone noticed me. Then again, I carry around old stuff all the time and I wouldn't notice them noticing.
Click to expand...

They used to sell nut pickers, that came with those pliers-type nut crackers, that you could turn down and make a new stylus to replace the old one if it was missing. I've still got a few. I'm not sure if they still make them, but it would be worth taking a look. Let me check...

Yep! Cheap too: http://www.idealtruevalue.com/servlet/the-70465/Detail

Edit: just tighten one down in a power drill and hold a file to it.
 
Last edited:
FallisPhoto said:
They used to sell nut pickers, that came with those pliers-type nut crackers, that you could turn down and make a new stylus to replace the old one if it was missing. I've still got a few. I'm not sure if they still make them, but it would be worth taking a look. Let me check...

Yep! Cheap too: http://www.idealtruevalue.com/servlet/the-70465/Detail
Click to expand...

What good is the stylus without the long out of production "autographic" film?
Autographic film would be cool though...I wonder if I can be reproduced some how.
 
Great camera to actually use! Quite find indeed. If it's not too much trouble to het the shutter loose, I would give the lens a try on your Crown. It might work.
 
Old 120 Kodaks

Old 120 Kodaks

I bought a small lot of NOS Kodak replacement bellows and have enjoyed putting several 120 Kodaks (one is an autographic Jr.) back on line. One can occasionally find otherwise perfect cameras that have bad bellows. Yours either has a good bellows by some strange time warp or a replacement bellows. Way to go!!!
 
puderse said:
I bought a small lot of NOS Kodak replacement bellows and have enjoyed putting several 120 Kodaks (one is an autographic Jr.) back on line. One can occasionally find otherwise perfect cameras that have bad bellows. Yours either has a good bellows by some strange time warp or a replacement bellows. Way to go!!!
Click to expand...


It is pretty amazing really, the shape this thing is in.
The camera came from my MIL's home (we're cleaning it out as she has moved to a nursing home). My wife has never seen it before (she is in her 40's). My FIL was a happy snapper and had a Retina IIa (I now have it).
The overall picture tells me it has not seen the light of day for perhaps 50-70 years.

I think I'll put it in a box with my 300D and let my grandchildren discover it 50-70 years from now. I wonder which camera will boot up?
 
dazedgonebye said:
What good is the stylus without the long out of production "autographic" film?
Autographic film would be cool though...I wonder if I can be reproduced some how.
Click to expand...

Same reason I'd try to replace the nameplate if it was missing: just so it wouldn't nag me every time I looked at it.
 
chippy said:
its an interesting thought to make some backing paper to use the autographic feature, or even to cut sections out of the exsisting paper and stick an alternative peice in, to allow the stylus to scratch an impression on to it...likely though it is waaay too muh trouble to go to, and is probably just one of those things best remembered and left in the past.
Click to expand...

Andrew, do you have any idea how that used to work? From what I have read, there was a piece of carbon paper under that little window you opened in the back. You wrote on it and it transferred to the film. Then you exposed the open window to light for a few seconds, closed it, and went on to the next frame.

That just doesn't make any sense at all to me. The carbon paper backing would still be there, blocking the light.
 
chippy said:
but rather the backing paper was made up of an outer layer that was clearish and the inner layer that was made up containing some carbon...so you opened the autographic door and with the point of the stylus press and write whatever you want...the pressure compressed the carbon, (i cant think of a better word other than molicules, so i'll use that for now) molocules to each side of the pressure from the stylus, which made the word you pressed in appear clear from the backing paper...leaving the autographic door open thus exposed the film through the now clear part of the backing with the word insrcibed.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make sense to me. Okay, you have written on the film, through a sheet of carbon paper/plastic/pig bladder/whatever. The carbon from the "paper" has transferred to the film. You turn that window up toward the sun and expose it to the light. The thing is, you still have a sheet of carbon paper blocking the light path except where you have written, and where you have written, the film now has carbon sticking to it -- so that blocks the light. You haven't gotten rid of the opaque carbon, just moved it to the next layer. I can't help but feel we're missing something.

Edit: Okay, I reread what you wrote and (thinking just a little outside the box) I may have finally figured it out. Basically, all that stuff on the internet, with people saying that you used the stylus to write on the film with carbon paper, implying that the carbon side of the paper was down, is BS -- because the only way I can think of to make it work is if the carbon side of the paper is up. You must have used the stylus to scratch/push away the carbon.
 
Last edited:
chippy said:
very good idea though hey, it could probably be considered the first data back...i dont think the cameras with the feature lasted more than 15 years or so, so i am not sure how popular it was, but there are seemingly millions of these things out there.
Click to expand...

Well, all the ones I've seen are well used, and there are a lot of them, so apparently a lot of people were buying them and using them. I'd hazard a guess, based just on that, that they were very popular. Based on the photos at the beginning of the thread, I'd say that they were at least fairly good cameras too -- much as it pains me to say that about anything that says Kodak on it and that isn't a Medallist or a Retina.
 
chippy said:
"... i have some that are purple kodak camera with pink bellows ..."
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to say anything, Andrew...

chippy said:
"... Obvioisly for females or young girls, typicaly poor quality common kodak lens. on some kodaks sold back then, like i think the kodak 3a and others, kodak would replace the back with an autographic back for free--quite possibly the autographic film was more expensive so they were keen for people to get hooked into using it. so i wonder just how popular the autogrphic feature was as they stopped producing the cameras with this feature eventually...just because the camera had the autographic feature didnt mean that people used the autographic film, they could still use standard 120 film as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you could buy the cameras without the Autographic feature too. A lot of people must have chosen to buy it with. Presumably, they had a reason for that.

chippy said:
so just because a kodak has the autographic feature (designated by an 'A' with model name ,number) doesnt mean it is automatically a good quality camera, in many or most cases the opposite can be true.
Click to expand...

Okay, some of them then. In fact, I think I'm going to get one, if I can find one with a decent lens.

chippy said:
the kodak 1a in the OP is one of those kodaks that got special attention from kodak and in this case got one of the better lens, although a RR lens is by no means special but used for a very long time by many makers, it does produce good results but its disadvantage is its very slow--some other models of this same type also got the first ever rangefinder
Click to expand...

I like to use ISO 25 film. Slowness doesn't bother me. I would like to get some sharpness in exchange for my time though.

Edit: Lucky me. From what I have been reading, a rule of thumb with early Kodak lenses is that the slower lenses tend to usually be sharper.
 
Last edited:
Kodak put some nice lenses on these old folders. A friend & RFF member found a Kodak 170mm Anastigmat on one. He found two B&L R.R.s and shared one with me. The R.R. is interesting. The lens renders fine detail very well in a smooth way. Somewhere between soft and sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom