Shooting modern auto racing with a 1926 box camera ...

It is actually no brainier, ISO100 film and bright day. The only problem is to find Brownie with good lens. My first one was sharp from 5 meters and far. One I have now is just like in the article :).
 
Ko.Fe. said:
It is actually no brainier, ISO100 film and bright day. The only problem is to find Brownie with good lens. My first one was sharp from 5 meters and far. One I have now is just like in the article :).
Click to expand...
+1 . I find using small apertures and fixed focus quite 'liberating' :) .
 
I'll be honest, I was expecting better photos. Something must be off with the scanning or the developing, because the contrast in those photos is frankly, pretty ugly.

A yellow filter and/or some playing around with levels in photoshop should produce a very nice photo. Those all look bleh. Maybe the lens is dirty too.

Ansco SAAB by Berang Berang, on Flickr

My box cameras generally produce good contrast and tonality (even if I have to crop the images to level the horizons because the viewfinders are never accurate).
 
Your example above does not show the obvious vignetting that's in the auto photos.

What I noticed immediately was the poor cropping of the edges of the frames and the "squigglies" that should be easy to edit out. I do admit that the contrast/tonality should be better, even for photos from a camera of that age.
 
Hmm. given that Kodak introduced No.2 Size (=120) film in 1901 (Camera-Wiki tells me) and that doublet lenses were already long-established, does anyone happen to know which were the earliest box cameras thus equipped? To take, or be adaptable for, 120 film. I have a Box Tengor, but that is comparatively modern ;). I should have a poke about on line ...
 
The Brownie No.2 was the first camera made for 120. The design was updated numerous times (models B,C,D, etc.).

http://www.brownie.camera/no_2_brownie_camera.htm

The original Brownie (No.1, but it wasn't called this before No.2 was introduced) used 117 film, which is the same width as 120, but on a slightly different spool, so easy enough to use assuming you can find the proper 117 spools to re-wind 120 onto.
 
Box camera with doublet lens? Or for 120?
The pre 1926 Kodaks were made of cardboard. Not many cardboard boxes have survived 100 years in fully functional condition.

The issue which is hard to wrap a modern brain around is that 120 was a truly small format. The box brownie was the cheap phone camera of the era, specifically designed and marketed for children.

Your best bet for early box camera would be a mid 19th century camera. But even that would probably have a slow 4 element lens.

The trick is that enlargement was essentially non-existent until 35mm photography. Pre 1920s photographers did contact printing. If you wanted a 3x4 foot photo you used a very large camera indeed. And for this reason lens design was unstressed.
 
@tunalegs
Sorry, I wasn't explicit that I'm trying to follow the inspiration of the petapixel link given by the Original Poster, relating it to technological contemporaneity with the Ford Model T car, which appeared in 1908. This rules out later versions of the Brownie.

@Scrambler
Point taken about the Brownie target market.
I just wondered whether there had been any enterprising other camera manufacturer who might have made a higher-specified box camera in the very early 1900s. It seems there is more chance of finding the higher specification lenses on a folding camera of the time.

BTW I took a 1950s 6x9 Folder to the 1972 Le Mans 24 Hours ;). This shot was taken in the late evening.
Le Mans 1972, 14 Matra-Simca of François Cevert & Howden Ganley (2nd) by John Hancock, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
tunalegs said:
A yellow filter and/or some playing around with levels in photoshop should produce a very nice photo. Those all look bleh. Maybe the lens is dirty too.
Click to expand...

I wondered that too. I am glad you commented.

I will be facing the same issue soon; I am expecting the friendly mailman to deliver some 127 film to me (today!) for my Vest Pocket Kodak. The lens has some haze, but not too bad. It'll be fun, but I am finding there is a learning curve to scanning, at least there is for me. This will be good practice.
 
@citizen99: I have a 1926 Brownie and a 1926 folding plate camera for 6.5x9cm. With a period adapter the plate camera takes 120. Or I can use the plate holders and cut down 120 in a homemade adapter. But even the 120 plate camera (ICA Volta 106) was advertised at the time as a children's camera. Ground glass focussing, front movements and all. But it would have a higher spec lens.
 
Scrambler said:
@citizen99: I have a 1926 Brownie and a 1926 folding plate camera for 6.5x9cm. With a period adapter the plate camera takes 120. Or I can use the plate holders and cut down 120 in a homemade adapter. But even the 120 plate camera (ICA Volta 106) was advertised at the time as a children's camera. Ground glass focussing, front movements and all. But it would have a higher spec lens.
Click to expand...
Very nice.
Interesting how perceptions change. I once had a Voigtlander Avus (the later, rim-set shutter, model) with the Skopar lens and a 120 roll film back on it. I shot colour transparency 120 (readily obtainable in the '70s) with it and the results were excellent.
Not to mention that you could also get the Bergheil with the Heliar lens ;).
 
The photos weren't as bad as described. Better composition and framing would have made them more interesting. As far as cameras go, the Kodak box camera, in good condition, will produce sharper images with fewer defects than the Holga or Diana. The real trick is knowing the hyperfocal distance for the lens, and stopping down (if the camera has multiple stops).

The problem here is the lack of fast shutter speeds.
 
The problem I have with the article's images is the guy who made them, though obviously enthused about film, appears to be a rank beginner. The lack of cropping, poor tonality and obvious need for spotting are things one should sort out before having them published.

Though I do understand there's a new generation who like their film images raw and gritty; us oldsters were taught otherwise. Now get off my lawn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom