For anyone coming to this site, I apologise for not having kept it up to date!
I had hoped to gradually create here a sort of "Users Handbook of Folding Cameras", and also a means of displaying some of my photographs, but other affairs have conspired to prevent me from doing that. However, I have now registered my own site, and in time, I hope to transfer much of this info to the new site, and add to it considerably.
Thank you for your patience
Something Important
This Blog reads in chronological order, that is to say, it begins at the beginning, and the latest post is last, just like the pages of a book or a letter. There appears to be no way that I can alter the page indicators at the bottom of the page, so later posts are indicated by the words "Older Posts"! I am sorry for this confusion, if anyone reading this knows how to eliminate this folly, I would be delighted to know!
You cannot add comments to these pages directly, if you would like to comment, please send them to:
mikeinlagardette@gmail.com
and I will add them accordingly.
You cannot add comments to these pages directly, if you would like to comment, please send them to:
mikeinlagardette@gmail.com
and I will add them accordingly.
In The Beginning
Friday, 14th January 2011
I have quite a few roll film folders in my collection of film cameras, and with one or two exceptions they are all serviceable, so I thought it might be interesting to compare them, both as to picture quality, and to ease of use, although this latter feature would perhaps be better described as varying levels of irritation! But before I get round to the tests, here's a few thoughts about folders in general, because, let's be clear here, right at the beginning, compared to a modern DSLR, a medium format film SLR, or a TLR, these cameras are neither quick or intuitive to use, and they are not suitable for all types of photography.
So, why the fascination? Well, for me, the one thing that sets them apart from almost all other film cameras is their portability. I say almost all, because there are a few very tiny "spy" cameras, like the Minox, and some very lovely little Olympus cameras, the Pen 35mm half frames & the XA, and it's derivatives, in full frame 35mm, as well as similar offerings from Canon, Yashica, and many more, that are extremely portable, and the results from these can be truly remarkable. However, if you prefer medium format, and I do, the only truly portable, or perhaps I should say, pocketable cameras are going to be folders. Of course, most medium format cameras are portable, up to at least 4"x5" format, but the ones you can actually put in your pocket are few and far between.
I was tempted to call this thread "Cargo Pants Photography", that's what a particularly shapeless form of trousers are called in England. They are usually made of denim, and their distinguishing feature is a large number of pockets, some patch, some concealed, some zipped. I don't know what they are called elsewhere, riggers jeans, huntsmans pants, patch pocket strides, all ring a bell, but I'm sure you know the kind of thing. On the other hand, it could be called "Waistcoat Photography", you know, lots of pockets - photographers waistcoat, fishermans vest, hunters gilet, you choose the name.
Why, you wonder, if the camera will fit in his jeans pocket, does he need more pockets? The simple answer, is that these cameras need a little help to give of their best, and I don't mean just careful composition, and a steady hand. I come from a tradition that would not dream of taking a photo, with any camera, in any format, without using a lens hood. This is not the place to discuss the pros & cons of tradition, so I ask you to just accept,for the moment, that you need to take a lens hood, Next, since these cameras are at their best outdoors, and because I mostly use black & white film, a two times yellow filter is something else I always carry, (and something to put it in, if it has to be removed from the camera to fold it).You might prefer a weaker yellow/green, or an orange for a stronger effect, or maybe none at all, but I'd still protect that veritable Tessar, Solinar, Heliar, or any other lens you value, with a simple UV filter. Over the years, I've become fairly confident at estimating distances, but I still make mistakes, so I always have a little clip on rangefinder, even with a camera fitted with one (more on this later on), so that's something else to carry. I like the "Sunny Sixteen" rule for setting exposure, but like estimating distances, I make mistakes, so I usually have a little selenium light meter with me, nothing fancy, just to confirm my hunch, really. Some of these cameras only take eight frames on a roll, so you might need a couple of spare rolls, so they go in the pockets also.
You can see where this is going, can't you? You might need your wallet, pocket book, a pen and something to make notes in, and if you are not too politically correct, possibly your cigarettes, Zippo lighter, and maybe a hip flask for something to console yourself with, if it all goes pear shaped! In short, travelling light is a nice idea, but it takes a bit of organising to make it happen, although how much kit you burden yourself with is entirely up to you, and I've had quite a few nice days at the races, with just a folder & a lens hood, so don't think that any of the foregoing is the gospel truth, just use your common sense, and try to adapt to the situation.
OK, end of the "Thoughts of Chairman Mike". How best to do this? I thought I'd list the cameras I intend to use, with just the briefest description to begin with, and then just get on with it. You can't really say much about any camera after just one roll, so I'll use each of them for about a month, or four films, whichever comes first, and post the results as & when I have time. This is not in any way a scientific comparison, it's nothing more than a purely personal trial of some of the cameras I own, that might be interesting to other people. Along the way, I imagine, I may ramble on about films, formats, developer chemistry, Gothic architecture, rural railways, and anything else that seems pertinent at the time, but do feel free to ignore any of it, and just enjoy the pictures, or not, as the case may be!
Here we go then, under starters orders, we have: three 6x4.5 cameras, a Voigtlander Bessa 46 from 1939, at the moment, the only serviceable folder I have with a Tessar type lens, the f3.5/75mm Skopar, in a Compur Rapid shutter. Next, another pre-war German camera, a Kodak Duo Six-20 of 1939 made by Nagelwerke (Kodak AG), Stuttgart, fitted with an f3.5/75mm Kodak Anastigmat triplet, again in a Compur Rapid shutter. Finally, an Ensign-Selfix 16-20, made in England around 1953, it has a Rosstar triplet, f4.5/75mm, fitted in Ensigns own Epsilon shutter. All three cameras are in good to excellent condition, with clean lenses, accurate shutters, and clear viewfinders. Each of them has its own little feature: The Voigtlander has automatic frame advance, and a somewhat unusual shutter release, the Kodak has helical focussing, the entire lens unit moves, not just the front element, and the Ensign can use either 120 or 620 spools, without alteration. On the subject of film sizes, 620 is identical to 120, but is wound on to smaller spools, and was introduced by Kodak in the 'thirties, in a cynical attempt to tie owners of Kodak cameras to Kodak films. The spurious argument that this produced smaller cameras will be exposed as the marketing claptrap it really is, fairly early on! This will take us up to the beginning of April, and then I'll have a think about the next three months cameras, and the way this works out might mean I may need to alter the format, if you will forgive the double meaning.
I'll kick off with the little Voigtander, because it has a roll of film, Efke 100, already loaded. That's a bit slow for dull old January days, but I always rate it at 200 in Caffenol C anyway, but I'll change over to Fomapan 200 when the first roll's exposed, and that can easily give good results at 400, and 800 is nearly as good. I'm going to use Caffenol C for most of these tests, but I expect Diafine will creep in also, these are really the only two developers I use nowadays, and I'll explain a bit about them as we go along.
Roll film Folders Compared
A personal selection
I have quite a few roll film folders in my collection of film cameras, and with one or two exceptions they are all serviceable, so I thought it might be interesting to compare them, both as to picture quality, and to ease of use, although this latter feature would perhaps be better described as varying levels of irritation! But before I get round to the tests, here's a few thoughts about folders in general, because, let's be clear here, right at the beginning, compared to a modern DSLR, a medium format film SLR, or a TLR, these cameras are neither quick or intuitive to use, and they are not suitable for all types of photography.
I was tempted to call this thread "Cargo Pants Photography", that's what a particularly shapeless form of trousers are called in England. They are usually made of denim, and their distinguishing feature is a large number of pockets, some patch, some concealed, some zipped. I don't know what they are called elsewhere, riggers jeans, huntsmans pants, patch pocket strides, all ring a bell, but I'm sure you know the kind of thing. On the other hand, it could be called "Waistcoat Photography", you know, lots of pockets - photographers waistcoat, fishermans vest, hunters gilet, you choose the name.
Why, you wonder, if the camera will fit in his jeans pocket, does he need more pockets? The simple answer, is that these cameras need a little help to give of their best, and I don't mean just careful composition, and a steady hand. I come from a tradition that would not dream of taking a photo, with any camera, in any format, without using a lens hood. This is not the place to discuss the pros & cons of tradition, so I ask you to just accept,for the moment, that you need to take a lens hood, Next, since these cameras are at their best outdoors, and because I mostly use black & white film, a two times yellow filter is something else I always carry, (and something to put it in, if it has to be removed from the camera to fold it).You might prefer a weaker yellow/green, or an orange for a stronger effect, or maybe none at all, but I'd still protect that veritable Tessar, Solinar, Heliar, or any other lens you value, with a simple UV filter. Over the years, I've become fairly confident at estimating distances, but I still make mistakes, so I always have a little clip on rangefinder, even with a camera fitted with one (more on this later on), so that's something else to carry. I like the "Sunny Sixteen" rule for setting exposure, but like estimating distances, I make mistakes, so I usually have a little selenium light meter with me, nothing fancy, just to confirm my hunch, really. Some of these cameras only take eight frames on a roll, so you might need a couple of spare rolls, so they go in the pockets also.
You can see where this is going, can't you? You might need your wallet, pocket book, a pen and something to make notes in, and if you are not too politically correct, possibly your cigarettes, Zippo lighter, and maybe a hip flask for something to console yourself with, if it all goes pear shaped! In short, travelling light is a nice idea, but it takes a bit of organising to make it happen, although how much kit you burden yourself with is entirely up to you, and I've had quite a few nice days at the races, with just a folder & a lens hood, so don't think that any of the foregoing is the gospel truth, just use your common sense, and try to adapt to the situation.
OK, end of the "Thoughts of Chairman Mike". How best to do this? I thought I'd list the cameras I intend to use, with just the briefest description to begin with, and then just get on with it. You can't really say much about any camera after just one roll, so I'll use each of them for about a month, or four films, whichever comes first, and post the results as & when I have time. This is not in any way a scientific comparison, it's nothing more than a purely personal trial of some of the cameras I own, that might be interesting to other people. Along the way, I imagine, I may ramble on about films, formats, developer chemistry, Gothic architecture, rural railways, and anything else that seems pertinent at the time, but do feel free to ignore any of it, and just enjoy the pictures, or not, as the case may be!
Here we go then, under starters orders, we have: three 6x4.5 cameras, a Voigtlander Bessa 46 from 1939, at the moment, the only serviceable folder I have with a Tessar type lens, the f3.5/75mm Skopar, in a Compur Rapid shutter. Next, another pre-war German camera, a Kodak Duo Six-20 of 1939 made by Nagelwerke (Kodak AG), Stuttgart, fitted with an f3.5/75mm Kodak Anastigmat triplet, again in a Compur Rapid shutter. Finally, an Ensign-Selfix 16-20, made in England around 1953, it has a Rosstar triplet, f4.5/75mm, fitted in Ensigns own Epsilon shutter. All three cameras are in good to excellent condition, with clean lenses, accurate shutters, and clear viewfinders. Each of them has its own little feature: The Voigtlander has automatic frame advance, and a somewhat unusual shutter release, the Kodak has helical focussing, the entire lens unit moves, not just the front element, and the Ensign can use either 120 or 620 spools, without alteration. On the subject of film sizes, 620 is identical to 120, but is wound on to smaller spools, and was introduced by Kodak in the 'thirties, in a cynical attempt to tie owners of Kodak cameras to Kodak films. The spurious argument that this produced smaller cameras will be exposed as the marketing claptrap it really is, fairly early on! This will take us up to the beginning of April, and then I'll have a think about the next three months cameras, and the way this works out might mean I may need to alter the format, if you will forgive the double meaning.
I'll kick off with the little Voigtander, because it has a roll of film, Efke 100, already loaded. That's a bit slow for dull old January days, but I always rate it at 200 in Caffenol C anyway, but I'll change over to Fomapan 200 when the first roll's exposed, and that can easily give good results at 400, and 800 is nearly as good. I'm going to use Caffenol C for most of these tests, but I expect Diafine will creep in also, these are really the only two developers I use nowadays, and I'll explain a bit about them as we go along.
1953 Ensign Selfix 16-20
Friday 14th January, 2011
The youngest of the three 6x4.5 cameras, made in North London in 1953. There were a number of different levels of specification for these cameras, and I suppose this one is about in the middle, but produces very sharp, contrasty photos, despite not having the very best lens option.
The Epsilon shutter has speeds up to 1/300th sec, and the camera can use either 120 or 620 spools, and is comfortably smaller than the Kodak Duo Six-20, demonstrating that "620 meant smaller cameras" was nothing but a marketing fantasy!
The youngest of the three 6x4.5 cameras, made in North London in 1953. There were a number of different levels of specification for these cameras, and I suppose this one is about in the middle, but produces very sharp, contrasty photos, despite not having the very best lens option.
The Epsilon shutter has speeds up to 1/300th sec, and the camera can use either 120 or 620 spools, and is comfortably smaller than the Kodak Duo Six-20, demonstrating that "620 meant smaller cameras" was nothing but a marketing fantasy!
1938 Kodak Duo Six-20 Series2
Friday 14th January, 2011
This one uses 620 spools, which means that 120 film has to be re-wound onto the smaller spools in a changing bag. It sounds a lot of effort, but doesn't take too long, once you get the hang of it
Some 620 cameras can be converted to accept 120 films straight out of the box, but the Duo Six-20 is made to such tight limits, that it is all but impossible.
What sets this camera apart from most similar cameras, is that the entire lens & shutter moves when focussing, unlike other folders, where just the front element moves.
This one uses 620 spools, which means that 120 film has to be re-wound onto the smaller spools in a changing bag. It sounds a lot of effort, but doesn't take too long, once you get the hang of it
Some 620 cameras can be converted to accept 120 films straight out of the box, but the Duo Six-20 is made to such tight limits, that it is all but impossible.
What sets this camera apart from most similar cameras, is that the entire lens & shutter moves when focussing, unlike other folders, where just the front element moves.
1939 Voigtlander Bessa 46
Friday 14th January, 2011
Voigtlander was the worlds oldest optical company, and was always noted for its imaginative designs, and this little folder is no exception. Whereas most roll film cameras of that era used the"red window" to advance the film, this one does it quite automatically. It is also probably the smallest 120 film camera ever made.
This one has a "Tessar" type lens, an f3.5/75mm Skopar, mounted in a high end, Compur Rapid shutter, with speeds up to 1/500 sec.
Voigtlander was the worlds oldest optical company, and was always noted for its imaginative designs, and this little folder is no exception. Whereas most roll film cameras of that era used the"red window" to advance the film, this one does it quite automatically. It is also probably the smallest 120 film camera ever made.
This one has a "Tessar" type lens, an f3.5/75mm Skopar, mounted in a high end, Compur Rapid shutter, with speeds up to 1/500 sec.
Making a Start
Friday 14th January, 2011
I'm glad that I have finally got under way with this blog, it was surprisingly easy to get something fairly presentable together, although I do have a few reservations about the restrictions imposed by the software, the maximum number of permitted characters in some fields seems pitifully small, but it is free, so I mustn't complain.
I like the way I can just post a picture from my Flickr photostream, which is where the first three pics came from, so now I will have a go at uploading one from the hard drive. This must seem terribly basic to those in the know, but it is all virgin territory to me! The other, far more serious, criticism I have, is that it seems impossible to reverse the order in which posts appear. The last posted message or image is always at the top, so the effect is something like starting a book at the end!
Surely, it would be better to start with the first post, and then progressively read downwards, like a book or a magazine, or am I being hopelessly old-fashioned? Anyone familiar with the previous content would just have to go to the last message or whatever they had read, and continue from there, and similarly, a new reader could start, naturally enough, at the beginning. Anyway, it seems this is not possible, a good reason to treat this blog as a bit of a prototype!
I'm glad that I have finally got under way with this blog, it was surprisingly easy to get something fairly presentable together, although I do have a few reservations about the restrictions imposed by the software, the maximum number of permitted characters in some fields seems pitifully small, but it is free, so I mustn't complain.
I like the way I can just post a picture from my Flickr photostream, which is where the first three pics came from, so now I will have a go at uploading one from the hard drive. This must seem terribly basic to those in the know, but it is all virgin territory to me! The other, far more serious, criticism I have, is that it seems impossible to reverse the order in which posts appear. The last posted message or image is always at the top, so the effect is something like starting a book at the end!
Surely, it would be better to start with the first post, and then progressively read downwards, like a book or a magazine, or am I being hopelessly old-fashioned? Anyone familiar with the previous content would just have to go to the last message or whatever they had read, and continue from there, and similarly, a new reader could start, naturally enough, at the beginning. Anyway, it seems this is not possible, a good reason to treat this blog as a bit of a prototype!
First picture from hard drive
So, not too hard to do after all! This is the lake near Saint Vaury, about ten minutes from where we live, taken with the Voigtlander Bessa 46, this afternoon. I was wrong about the film, it's Efke R100, not Fomapan.
Near Saint Vaury, Creuse, 23 France
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)