FallisPhoto
Veteran
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/Film-for-Older-Cameras/index-s-orderby-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:
oftheherd
Veteran
FallisPhoto
Veteran
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.
BILLC
Established
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 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
Roger Hicks
Veteran
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
FallisPhoto
Veteran
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.
chippy
foo was here
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:
bmattock
Veteran
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.
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.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
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?
Inexpensive solution for panorama photograpy and you also have a 4x5. How hard is that?
bmattock
Veteran
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.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Exactly! I don't have ten cameras because I need them to take good pictures, that's for sure. I just like trying out new/different/cheap stuff.
That said, I wouldn't mind getting into 4x5 someday.
kuzano
Veteran
Ikonta Super D
Ikonta Super D
The frame opening in an Ikonta Super D was roughly 6.5X11cm, and it was a rangefinder in the Ikonta Super line. It originally used 616 film. Too wide in the film gate for 120 respooling unless you masked the gate down for width.
Ikonta Super D
The frame opening in an Ikonta Super D was roughly 6.5X11cm, and it was a rangefinder in the Ikonta Super line. It originally used 616 film. Too wide in the film gate for 120 respooling unless you masked the gate down for width.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
$10? Only if you do the conversion yourself.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Mabelsound…. “Jason Schneider column.. a 6x11 folder. …I believe he was referring to one of the Ikontas, … Can any of them be converted to use 120? I want one.”
Abbazz “the original Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100 delivered images measuring more than 90mm long on 120 film…..You could also use a 6x12 rollfilm back on a 4x5 Speed Graphic or modify any folding camera using larger rollfilm to accept 120 spools.
Mabelsound “OK, bear with me, because I have never even looked into 4x5 stuff before. You're saying I can buy something like this, and attach it to a Speed Graphic? Any Speed Graphic? What, would you say, is the best affordable camera body to do this with? I didn't know this was an available option--I would LOVE to do it. Would I need to buy some kind of viewfinder?”
Bill I agree with you,however I was going along with the direction suggested by mabelsound , then Abbazz which prompted mabelsound to consider 4x5. I just didn’t see the need for the viewfinder/attachment. My suggestion was save the $$ 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.
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.
bmattock
Veteran
OK. Oh drat, I need 10 characters. OK again.
bmattock
Veteran
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.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
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
chippy
foo was here
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
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
chippy
foo was here
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
FallisPhoto
Veteran
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.