Interesting 6x4.5 Factoid

[graywolf]

Maybe this should be in the film forum, but I thought you guys might find this as interesting as I did.

I downloaded a manual for my Kodak Duo Six-20 circa 1937, and noticed that the recommended film was Panatomic X.

Now that is a very slow very fine grain film. And the fact they recommended it over Verichrome or Plus X, indicates that they did not think a 6x4.5 image was sharp enough unless you used that film. Now a 6x4.5 negative is 4x the size of a 35mm negative, so if they though you need Panatomic X for it, it is no wonder they thought 35mm was the equivalent of a subminiture format back then.

Remember, we are talking about the films from the 1930's, the film you buy today is maybe a 100 times better than it was back then, and no one would hesitate to make a 20x24 inch print from a 6x4.5 negative today, back then they figured you needed Panatomic X to make a decent 8x10 from one.

 

[jsrockit]

Or perhaps it was just the manufactuer telling users how to get the best results from its product. It still happens today.

 

[graywolf]

Well the Kodak Monitor (6x9) manual recommends Verichrome or Plus X.

A Monitor arrived in the mail today, it is bulkier and heavier than I expected. I had a couple of Kodak 620 Juniors back when I was a kid, and I remember them as being smaller and lighter. But then, they did not have the 4.5 lens and the Supermatic shutter, nor all the automation that the Monitor has. This one appears to be a pre-war version and I would call it exc-exc+ condition considering its age. I paid $4-5 more than it cost new for it.

Now, all I have to do is respool some 120 onto 620 reels, and I have two old Kodaks to play with. I will have to watch out, as I think I am in danger of becoming a collector.

 

[hanskerensky]

Guess you are right Tom.

In 1938 here in The Netherlands everything up to 6x6 cm image size was considered to be a "small format" camera. For big enlargments the only film at that time which gave sharp enough results for such a camera was the less sensitive 1-layer film.

No wonder that the highest shutterspeed of many cameras of that time was "only" 1/200 🙂

 

[Rob-F]

Kodak Duo? Hmm, "Duoflex" comes to mind. I think I had one of those. Is the Duo a box camera with fixed shutter speed and aperture? If so, the slow film might have been recommended for best daylight exposure results. Perhaps Verichrome or Plus-X might have tended toward overexposure in bright daylight. Just a thought.

 

[Ken Smith]

Kodak Duo? Hmm, "Duoflex" comes to mind. I think I had one of those. Is the Duo a box camera with fixed shutter speed and aperture?

Far from a simple box camera. It was a rather nice German made (Kodak AG) 620 folder that could be had, depending on when made, a Compur or Compur Rapid shutter. The earlier versions had simple flip up view finders, but the rarer Duo Series II had coupled rangefinder focusing. The European versions featured Zeiss Tessar and Schneider Xenar lenses while the US versions had a Kodak Anastigmat triplet. A very nice looking folder.

I'd like to get my hands of the rangefinder focusing model, but hate the idea of transfering 120 to 620 spools.

 

[Muggins]

Here's a Duo 620 on the right:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gray1720/3555577367/in/set-72157615594775003

Unfortunately the lens from the rear viewfinder is missing, which renders sorting out the other problems a bit pointless as it means I can't see through the thing! So if anyone reading this has a junk Duo 620 with a good rear viewfinder lens, I'd love to know.

I believe that Amelia Earhart had a Duo 620 - though unfortunately the aliens who abducted her have been unable to use it as 620 film is no longer available on planet Zqgwx.

Adrian

 

[graywolf]

Kodak Duo? Hmm, "Duoflex" comes to mind. I think I had one of those. Is the Duo a box camera with fixed shutter speed and aperture? If so, the slow film might have been recommended for best daylight exposure results. Perhaps Verichrome or Plus-X might have tended toward overexposure in bright daylight. Just a thought.

Nope!

The one on the right is the Duo Six-20 Series II (it is an earlier model, probably from 1937. There is a later model that has a different style focusing lever. Then there was the Duo Six-20 RF that came out in 1939, so there were only a 1000 of them made.

The Art Deco style Series-i was made from 1931 (or 1933, reports differ) had black painted trim instead of chrome.

The came with a Compur, or Compur Rapid shutter and eithe a 4.5 or 3.5 lens which could have been a Kodak Anastigmat, a Zeiss Tesser, or a Schneider Xenar. There is a lot of arguement about these lenses. 3 element, 4 element, what lens was available in which countries, etc. Mine has the Compur Rapid & Kodak Anastigmat 3.5 which would have been the top of the line, or at least the most expensive, version sold in the US.

Thes are very nice cameras that have two real claims to fame. The are the very first camera designed for 620 film. And, Amelia Earhart had one with her on her ill fated round the world flight.

 

[graywolf]

Originally, 120 & 620 film did not have frame numbers for 6x4.5. It apparently was thought no one would want to use that small a negative. It was the popularity of 35mm that caused the so called A format cameras to be made. Even though the introduction of 620 and the Duo 620 were contemporaneous the Duo had two windows, so you could use the 6x9 numbers twice like a lot of 6x4.5 cameras from the 1930's.

The recommended bright sunny day exposure for Panatomic X was f5.6 @ 1/100 of a second, roughly the equivalent of somewhere in the ASA 12-25 range; probably ASA 25, as the recommended expousure by guess was about 2x the proper one so there would be more underexposure latitude. Anyway that is not the film one would want to use for everyday photos if one did not absolutely have to. The fastest Kodak film of the day was Super XX rated at ASA 100. Plus X and Verichrome were rated ASA 80 and were the normal outdoor film in those days.

Using a 35mm, 127, or 6x4.5 camera in the 1930's was like using a Minox in the 1960's, it was something of a wonder that with great effort you could get a good print. Actually, in the 1950's 35mm still took super fine grain developers and great care in processing. All of which was why 35mm considered a specialized Kodachrome slide camera back then. Now, of course, no one would even blink at making a 8x10 form super fast 35mm film.

Still, I found it interesting that Panatomic X was the recommended film for use with the Duo Six-20.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Using a 35mm, 127, or 6x4.5 camera in the 1930's was like using a Minox in the 1960's, it was something of a wonder that with great effort you could get a good print. Actually, in the 1950's 35mm still took super fine grain developers and great care in processing. All of which was why 35mm considered a specialized Kodachrome slide camera back then. Now, of course, no one would even blink at making a 8x10 form super fast 35mm film.

Still, I found it interesting that Panatomic X was the recommended film for use with the Duo Six-20.

Not really. Remember that in the 1930s the concept of 'small camera -- big print' was to a large extent in relation to contact prints, or to VERY small degrees of enlargement (2x) from quarter-plate. Postcard or half-plate was regarded as a sensible size for enlargements from 'miniatures': whole-plate and 8x10 inch were widely regarded as pointless showing off.

By the 1950s, many old-school diehards were still allergic to grain, so ultra-fine-grain developers remained popular with 35mm, but even by then, some of the more advanced thinkers were asking, "What is actually wrong with a little grain?"

And, of course, pre-1960 ASA figures included a one-stop safety factor, so speeds doubled overnight when the new standard was rolled out. The joke is that in the 1950s, many amateurs whinged and snivelled that film manufacturers' speeds were '"too low", just as they whinge and snivel today that films "aren't really as fast as their ISO speeds". In reality, films are generally pretty close to their stated ASA or ISO speeds, in the stated developer: the drawback is that distressingly many people don't know what an ISO standard is or how it works.

Cheers,

R.

 

[graywolf]

Not really. Remember that in the 1930s the concept of 'small camera -- big print' was to a large extent in relation to contact prints, or to VERY small degrees of enlargement (2x) from quarter-plate. Postcard or half-plate was regarded as a sensible size for enlargements from 'miniatures': whole-plate and 8x10 inch were widely regarded as pointless showing off.

To the lower tier of photographers contact or 3x4 enlargements was always the album print of choice. But even in the 1930's 8x10 was the professional norm (they fit in a file cabinet). Most publications required 8x10's; although some reluctantly accepted 5x7's. Money being tight 5x7's were probably the home darkroom enthusiast's usual enlargement size.

And there in lies the the tale: 35mm & to some extent 2-1/4 x 1-5/8 (6mm x 4.5mm) film of those days just was not good enough to produce those size prints although some really excellent darkroom experts could get decent 5x7's.

There was a time when the only publication that accepted 35mm was National Geographic, and they only accepted Kodachrome slides in that format.

When you go back another decade (1920's) 5x7 was mostly the minimum film size for professional work (even the newspapers), smaller cameras were considered strictly snapshot cameras, and that is probably where the term got its negative connotation.

 

[graywolf]

The ASA revision was in 1959, I remember it well. Panatomic went from 25 to 40, Plus X from 80 to 160 in 35mm & 125 in larger formats. Super XX from 125 to 200. and Tri X from 200 to 400 (rollfilm) & 320 (sheet film).

The claim, at the time, was that most cameras had light meters so the safety factor was no longer needed. I have read that there was some techincal reasons that the method of testing film had been changed. My own theory was that automatic processing machines had become the norm for commercial labs, and thinner negatives meant that less time was required for both processing & printing with a thinner negative (time is money).

PS: As I remember it the only home darkroom folks who though that film speed was rated about a stop too low back then were the 35mm users who found that a sightly under exposed negative gave a slightly sharper print.

 

[Muggins]

Bloody hell - I've just looked for some on Eyouknowwhere to see whether anyone was selling a 99p junker - fat chance! I think the cheapest I saw was over £30 - including a broken one!

Looks as though my viewfinder will remain cream-crackered for the foreseeable future.🙁

Roger, I cause you distress, and having looked up ISO standard film speed, I fear that will be the case for some time to come...

Adrian

EDIT: P.S. Wasn't the Ensign Cupid the first camera with two red windows for taking half-frame pictures on 120?

 

[Roger Hicks]

To the lower tier of photographers contact or 3x4 enlargements was always the album print of choice. But even in the 1930's 8x10 was the professional norm (they fit in a file cabinet). Most publications required 8x10's; although some reluctantly accepted 5x7's. Money being tight 5x7's were probably the home darkroom enthusiast's usual enlargement size.

Again, not exactly. In Britain it was whole-plate, not 8x10, and I am reasonably confident that half-plate was accepted by quite a few publications, though frankly, I'm not quite excited enough to go and verify that.

Besides, my understanding was that we were talking about amateur enlargements, not professional. Referring to amateurs en bloc as 'the lower tier' seems excessively dismissive.

Of course happy-snaps in albums were normally contacts and 'en-prints' (standing for 'enlarged [contact] prints'), but if you read books from the 1930s (such as 'Miniature Photography from One Amateur to Another', Richard L. Simon, Simon and Schuster 1937) you find that half-plate (or the American equivalent, 5x7 inch) was pretty much the standard among enthusiastic 'miniaturists' who did their own enlarging: only a few favoured negatives would normally be selected for greater enlargement.

Looking at MCM (Miniature Camera Magazine) for 1939, the magazine format is only 5-1/4 x 7-1/2 inches, with no pictures in the body of the magazine reaching the full 7-1/2 inches. Even half-page shots are unusual; many are just 6x9 cm. Remember, this was a magazine for dedicated small-format users. Comparison with Minox is certainly hyperbole.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I cause you distress, and having looked up ISO standard film speed, I fear that will be the case for some time to come...

Adrian

Dear Adrian,

Yes, the ISO standard is a bit chewy, isn't it?

The point is, a lot of people don't understand that:

(a) ISO standards are reproducible, so regardless of the EI that suits one person or another, ISO speeds are usually very close to the stated ISO

(b) The EI that suits you (or me, or anyone else) is not necessarily the ISO speed, though ISO speeds are a very good relative guide

(c) Any attempt at an ISO exposure (for a negative) that does not measure the darkest shadow in which the photographer wants texture is essentially meaningless in that it does not relate to the ISO exposure criterion. Other methods of measuring exposure -- incident, broad-area, grey card/palm of hand, sunny 16, whatever -- will hit the ISO exposure only in a very few cases, and will normally require some sort of fudge factor, usually requiring more exposure (= a lower EI).

Once you accept all that, of course, the ISO standard reverts to what it is supposed to be: a good relative guide, which is how I treat it. And (I suspect) how you do too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[graywolf]

Comparison with Minox is certainly hyperbole.

Yep, it was, a bit, but I also stated "Minox in the 1960's", I believe.

I have no idea what the publishing situation was, or is, in the UK. I write from a USA centric viewpoint. But, while you claim to be contradicting me, you actually are agreeing with me, 5x7 being about the limit of 35mm work in the 1930's.

Also, I used lower tier to mean those who got their prints made a the local drug store (chemist's, I believe is the term in the UK), not as a pejorative.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yep, it was, a bit, but I also stated "Minox in the 1960's", I believe.

I have no idea what the publishing situation was, or is, in the UK. I write from a USA centric viewpoint. But, while you claim to be contradicting me, you actually are agreeing with me, 5x7 being about the limit of 35mm work in the 1930's.

Also, I used lower tier to mean those who got their prints made a the local drug store (chemist's, I believe is the term in the UK), not as a pejorative.

Dear Tom,

No, I'm not contradicting you. As you say, we are in broad agreement. The original post was about Minox hyperbole, which you have cheerfully conceded. The second was simply to clarify that half-plate/ 13x18cm/ 5x7 inch was popular among amateurs, and that it was regarded as fairly normal, and not as you put it, "some really excellent darkroom experts could get decent 5x7's." As I say, this is from reading books and magazines from the 1930s.

Cheers,

R.

 

[graywolf]

Roger, when I started doing my own 35mm darkroom work in 1961, I found it was rather tediously fussy. If you did not do everything just right, it came out pretty darn bad. Sort of like doing color in the 1970's. By comparison, you could just splash roll film or sheet film about in a tray and get a pretty nice print out of it. That experience is what I based my opinion that it took an expert to get good 5x7 prints in the 1930's. Plus, of course reading those old books you mentioned (back in the 1950's there were still a lot of them in the public libraries).

When I went back to doing darkroom work in the late 70's, I was amazed at how much easier it was. Nowadays, I stand develop 120 in Rodinal for an hour or so, and get a really decent negative with no effort whatsoever. My temp control is to make sure the room is over 65F, and I once forgot and left the film in for 2.5 hours; no problem. Definitely, the lazy man's way to process film.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Tom,

Well, I started about 5 years later than you, with 800 feet of outdated FP3, and never stopped. My poor results in '66 were mostly down to not knowing what I was doing -- and although I never tried Minox in the 60s, I did try a Minolta 16-II. Unlike you, I really don't think it's got that much easier, apart from the vastly improved quality of Multigrade paper.

Reading some more of Miniature Camera Magazine for 1939, I found the assertion that making a negative that would stand an 8x enlargement with minimal grain was easy. Now, I now that films improved a LOT in the 1930s (see my A History of the 35m Still Camera, The Focal Press, 1984 or so) but I really don't see that they got a lot better in the '60s and '70s.

They got better, yes: better speed/grain ratios, greatly increased resistance to reticulation. Vastly better? Well, there are those who'd say we're both wrong and that Super-XX was better than Tri-X. Certainly, my wife has made some excellent prints from her late father's Super-XX negatives from (I think) the 30s.

What developers and films were you using in the 60s? Might it not be that your current Rodinal technique would have worked as well then as now? In my own case, my photography improved enormously when I stopped habitually 'pushing' film whether I needed to or not.

Finally, I'd again challenge you on hyperbole in comparing B+W with colour in the '70s (which I also did, with several processes). Yes, colour was indeed 'tediously fussy', and very considerably more difficult than any B+W I've ever done -- except for the few weeks in the 70s when I tried the Zone System.

Cheers,

R.

 

[graywolf]

Actually, Roger, I started about 1953 with a contact printing outfit from Montgomery Wards (department store here in the US). Processing film from my folding Kodak the most difficult part was that my baby sister always needed to use the bathroom at the most critical point. The second difficulty was that I had no one to answer my questions.

I believe at that time it was still Verichrome rather than Verichrome Pan because I remember tray developing a couple of rolls under the red safe light, although I was only 10 so I may be wrong about that.

In 1961, I was in the Air Force using the base photo hobby lab, had the lab manager to ask questions of, and free film and photo paper. I became the assistant manager, mainly because I was in there all the time, which allowed me to use the facility for free.

Like you I though I needed the fastest film possible and usually shot Ansco Super Hypan souped it in Edwal FG-7 (I liked it being a liquid developer) to process it either at 500 (normal) or 1000 (one stop push). I did not notice any difference processing it either way, the only difference being how long I souped it. The enlarging paper they provided at the lab was a roll of 16 inch stuff, so my printing method was to print to the size that looked good and crop for composition with the paper cutter. That was a lot different than the idea that you have to crop to the format you are shooting, and influences my work even today.