Because I'm a masochist...

I have two of a later version of this Falcon, both have splitimage rangefinders. One was my mother-in-law's. It spent WWII in a US government impound locker because our ancestors were not considered to be "loyal and trustworthy" Americans. Amazingly, the government gave it back after the war.

It is a half-frame 127. It shoots 127 film, but makes a photo about 4 cm by 2.75 cm. or so. Basically half of a "vest pocket" size. So it gets 16 shots roll. Quality is so-so.

I also have about 10 rolls or so of 127 E-4 Ektachrome. It is totally useless as slide film because it is at least 30 years out-of-date and has not been frozen for the past 10 years. Nonetheless, there are perfectly good spools and numbered backing paper in those boxes.

Send me a PM with you address and I'll mail them to you.

-Paul
 
FrankS said:
*If it were me* I'd have spent the money on film for the Canon P. Trying to go in too many directions at once, leads you nowhere. :)
Click to expand...

I was going to say something very similar Frank.
 
pshinkaw said:
I have two of a later version of this Falcon, both have splitimage rangefinders. One was my mother-in-law's. It spent WWII in a US government impound locker because our ancestors were not considered to be "loyal and trustworthy" Americans. Amazingly, the government gave it back after the war.

It is a half-frame 127. It shoots 127 film, but makes a photo about 4 cm by 2.75 cm. or so. Basically half of a "vest pocket" size. So it gets 16 shots roll. Quality is so-so.

I also have about 10 rolls or so of 127 E-4 Ektachrome. It is totally useless as slide film because it is at least 30 years out-of-date and has not been frozen for the past 10 years. Nonetheless, there are perfectly good spools and numbered backing paper in those boxes.

Send me a PM with you address and I'll mail them to you.

-Paul
Click to expand...

Hm...so the ones you have are rangefinders...interested in parting with one of those? ;)

I may take you up on the Ektachrome, mainly because I could probably grab a C-41 kit of some kind and develop it in the bathroom...because of the date it would be interesting anyway, but cross processing it would make things *really* trippy if I use it with this camera.
 
Steph has been hanging out with us geezers for so long she's going through the '60s.

How are you set for 620 cameras?
 
Oh yeah, and about 'going in too many different directions'. That's what keeps me interested in photography. When I'm going out to do something serious, the Canon P and Fed both go out the door with me. They are my staple cameras and I treat them as such. The things I buy for fun (these cameras, the box-o-cameras I got a while back, the Lex35) are just for that...fun. Some of them end up going out the door later on to other people who like cameras...others stay with me to be used by me. They are just my own way of keeping myself from getting out of the frame of mind I need to be in to do my own photography: "Ooooh...I wonder how *this* shot would look if taken with *this* camera and *this* camera on *this* film and *this* film..." You get the idea. I do what I do because I love photography and I'm still finding my way...and I have to find my own way.
 
greyhoundman said:
Trippy? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Story. My uncle and my mother were both young children in the 60's and teenagers in the 70's. I hang around my uncle a lot because he's kind of an amateur shutterbug (and a cop) and we can talk shop. He *still* uses that and a lot of words from the time period...I used to roll my eyes at him when he said it, but then I realized that it was a pretty avid description of what you get when you cross process a roll of slide film older than 20 years. ;)
 
Stephanie:

I'm planning on hanging on to the Falcon's for awhile yet, but you are welcome to the Ektachrome.

Ektachrome is a color reversal film for transparencies. It is not C-41, but E-4 process. It is still possible to have E-4 processed, but it costs around $20 per roll. I don't think you will get an image if you tried C-41 or even a B&W developer on it. besides, it is so ancient that even if you had an E-4 home developing kit, if would likely only have shadows. The only value the film has is for a film collector (yes, there are such people) or for the spools and paper.

-Paul
 
pshinkaw said:
Stephanie:

I'm planning on hanging on to the Falcon's for awhile yet, but you are welcome to the Ektachrome.

Ektachrome is a color reversal film for transparencies. It is not C-41, but E-4 process. It is still possible to have E-4 processed, but it costs around $20 per roll. I don't think you will get an image if you tried C-41 or even a B&W developer on it. besides, it is so ancient that even if you had an E-4 home developing kit, if would likely only have shadows. The only value the film has is for a film collector (yes, there are such people) or for the spools and paper.

-Paul
Click to expand...

Just so you know...I can purposely cross process it in C-41 to get really crazy results. Considering the fact that this camera may or may not work anyway and I'm pretty sure the Bella is a very Holga-like camera, cross processing the film seems appropriate for some reason.
 
other possibilities

other possibilities

you might want to consider two early American made 35's, the 1936 Argus A and wooden 35mm half frame 1928 Ansco Memo.

Argus A info at http://cameraquest.com/arg2.htm and http://cameraquest.com/argapic.htm -- they typically sell pretty cheap on Ebay and take standard 35mm film. This was America's first super successful 35mm camera.

the hard to find 1928 Memo takes special film casettes, so make sure you get them with the camera. the Memo is harder to use, but perhaps more interesting because it is the least expensive of the very early 35mm cameras -- if you have patience on the bay. the other relatively inexpensive, but very early and interesting 35mm camera is the French made Sept -- because it had seven different functions including movie camera and projector!

Stephen
 
The frame size on the Falcon is 3 x 4 cm. (To get that to line up on conventional roll film, you advance it so that the next number shows up in one red window, then the other. That's why there are two red windows.)

However, 3 x 4 cm is close enough to 24 x 36mm that you probably could trim down the resulting negs and just treat them like 35mm negs. It's not as if the Falcon's optical viewfinder is going to be so excruciatingly accurate that you'll be doing precise framing anyway!
 
What I'd really love to do is see if I can find a way to make the thing work with 35mm roll film...but I have no idea how I'd do that right now.

At the moment, I'm going to focus on getting the cameras and seeing what is and isn't wrong with them. I don't expect either of them to work right offhand. I love learning experiences.

And BTW...was there someone looking for a half frame camera here lately? If I can get this one working I may go ahead and sell it. I have the Demi...I really don't see myself needing another half frame. The problem is that this one relies on the meter for function somewhat like the Olympus Pen EE...if the meter is dead, so is the camera for the most part.

I gambled...so now we see if I won or lost. ;)
 
Someone slip that gal some 127 Verichrome Pan! (Regrettably, I have none...last time I touched the stuff was probably 1967)


- Barrett
 
As best I could determine via a quick Google search, 127 rollfilm is 1-5/8 inches wide. 35mm film (I just measured some) is 1-3/8 inches wide. That means that in principle, you could roll some 35mm film onto 127 spools using 127 paper backing, and get SOME kind of picture; remember you'd be exposing on the whole film area, including the sprocket holes!

To get around that, you could mask down the width of the film gate. To get inside the sprocket-hole area, you'd need to mask off about 5/16 inch off top and bottom. You'd want to use the full width of the original film gate, so that the numbers on your 127 paper backing would still provide the correct spacing. If I'm not getting this completely confused, I believe this would yield roughly 24 x 30mm negatives... hey, you've just invented "ideal format" 35mm!

It might be easier, though, to use 120 rollfilm instead. In the same Google search, I found the following hair-raising post:

Some member on this list suggested that one might cut a 120 roll into 127 format on a band saw; tried it; it works!! Used an electric band saw with deck adjusted so it is just a little higher than the roll; this insures the saw will not wobble and yaw; rewound the film on a metal 127 roll; Im sure this is the first time in a while a roll of Tri-X has been shot in the Baby; developed in D76 for 10 min.. some light fog on edges but none inside usable area; Super Slides will be next;
Click to expand...

I say "hair-raising" because the idea of using a band saw in the dark REALLY scares me! (Or maybe he left the lights on and that's why he got edge fogging.) Assuming you can solve that problem... well, you'd still need some 127 spools and paper backing, but this approach sounds more practical to me than trying to get 35mm film to fit.

At least you're experimenting on an undistinguished camera, so if the whole thing turns out to be a disaster there's not much to be lost...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom