Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Or some peanut butter on the negative before printing it...

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I think I last used a Brownie on a motorcycle trip to New Orleans in 1976. Were it not for the huge film size, the image quality would have been REALLY bad!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Here is a comprehensive article on Hawkeye.https://www.shutterbug.com/content/why-i-still-shoot-vintage-kodak-brownie-hawkeye-film-camera

I had one when I was 9-years old. I fell in love with it when I saw the complete setup- flas attachment, film, and flash lamps in a drugstore window. I save up money- rewards for doig household chores, donations from benevolent grandparents, etc. and purchased the outfit for 14.95. Besides getting a start in my photographic education, I got good practice in janitorial work like feeding the coal furnace in one cellar, emptying the ashes, taking out the garbage, vacuuming the stairs, and washing the floors. After all, I had to keep the cash flow up photofinishing was expensive. Whether the coal furnace was replaced by an oil burner, I had space for my first darkroom in the coal bin- it took me 6 months to clean it out of the dust!

I eventually purchased a "cloud filter" (Yellow K-2) and a close-up attachment.

The bakelite classic was designed for use with NEGATIVE films that had ENORMOUS latitude so exposure was all over the place but the automatic printing machines in the labs where the drugstores sent their photofinishing could turn out very decent glossy deckled edge "JUMBO prints for normal, thin or dens negatives. Verichrome film was probably around ASA 100 but because the photofinishing labs cou provide better prints from dense negatives than from thin ones, Kodad listed it with a safety factor and rated it at around 80.

The aperture was probably somewhere around f/12.5 possibly f'16 with kinda jibed the f/16 sunny day thing. I soon discover that I could get better prints on dull days or in the share with Super-X film which, as I recall, was a whopping ASA200- WOW! The focal length was (I'm guessing) around 75mm so it would yield reasonable focus and depth field at the prescribed distances.

It was a medium-form 2 1/4 square box camera (just like a Hasselblad-) the 620 film was like the 120 sizes but with a different spool socket.

The flash older use 2 "C" batteries and accepted Press 5, Press 25, or Bantom 8 Flashlamps. I found I could stop some action with SF flas lamps that were filled with gas rather than zirconium mesh.

The camera had a time exposure settg so if I could find a way to support the camera (it did not have a tripod socket) I was able to make night shots of static subjects.

My fits color prints were made with Kodacolr film (ASA 32)- I shot the late after and everyone came out ORANGE.

The Hawkeye was an upgrade from the Baby Brownie Special (127) and the next step was Poney 135.

Another trick- whenever I sent a technical question to Kodak's Sales-Serve Division at State Street in Rochester NY, they sent me a FREE data book- I amassed quite a collection- at the store they were marked at $.75 Well, I figure out how to broach a complex enough question so that their writing a letter is too much work and a data book would more than suffice. I'm sure Kodad did not lose out on the deal- they pushed all the products in those books. Nonetheless, those books were very comprehensive and informative. No other company published that kind of literature on a continuous basis.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

VP {verichrome pan} black & white film was ASA 125. I don’t believe color negative film was very common at all until the late 1960’s or even later; by then, color negative film was ASA 64. Remember, this was fixed shutter speed and aperture. In order to emulate the look of the time, you would have to emulate the work of developers used by drug stores. When I worked for a developer in summer in the late 1960’s, negatives were printed by housewives who had been trained to do the job.

User ID

For my reply to you, re-read my earlier posts. Yes, Im "too lazy" to type more than minimally ... for reasons expressed in those posts and reinforced by the overall thread going exactly as predicted.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The overall thread was doing fine until you showed up. You haven’t added anything positive.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

_______________________________(reply)

Although I graduated from the Brownie box--which used a larger size than the 120/620 size---i recollect a size 116, but might be wrong. and recollect a speed of 60 for the 120/620 standard 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. I went right to 35mm just before I turned 12---researching and buying a German small 35mm non-range finder camera with a good Schneider F 2.8 lens---January 1954. It is called a Diaxette and I still use it today. It is what I call the "Camera which never took a poor picture." Say that today about any Digital????-----------ew

User ID

YOU are the very least qualified on that. The OPs query was clearly quite simple.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

My answer on page 1 was complete. Can you do better?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The brownie was set up to do SUNNY 16. End of story.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

and that was. Sufficient for most.

BebuLamar

Not really. It was setup to overexpose in sunny 16 condition. That way it can have resonably good exposure in a lot of lighting condition.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Smudge your lens a bit as well.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's right. Film with higher ASA/ISO ratings were commonly used.

Negative film does not blow out like digital. The highlights taper off gradually and are easily accommodated when the print is made.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

This is a very helpful answer and it makes a lot of sense considering the nature of the technology at the time and marketing strategies. A factor that I had not considered, as some have pointed out here, is the latitude of the film being much greater than modern DSLR's.