GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Interesting stuff about Folmer & Schwing HERE

As an avid cyclist, I found this tidbit surprising:
"In approximately 1896 the firm began manufacturing cameras to compliment the growing interest in cameras mounted on bicycles.
The first cameras introduced were the cycle graphic and graphic cameras."

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Richard,

Thanks for the additional information but I did kind of meant Reflex and Single Lens at the same time and Pentaprism; SLR in the modern sense*. Meaning eye level not waist level shooting. A Rollieflex or Rolliecord was and is a twin lens camera (mirror, but no prism). Yes, later models could have a prism head as an option. I definitely know what a Graflex is. My wife's uncle was using one like a 4x5" view camera up until he died in the 1990's. I had hoped to get it but one of my wife's cousins ended up with the remainder of uncle's camera equipment. Grrr. And I was referring to old. Like music pre-WWII. 1954 is modern (film era) to me. I was born in 1954. The Nikon F dates from 1959. And I know that was not nearly the first SLR. The Lieca M3 1954 (Range Finder), Leica R 1964 (SLR). The *Ziess Contax S came out as a retail product in 1949 (initial work from 1936, interrupted by WWII). *Pentax Asahiflex from 1952. Peace :)

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Thanks for the update, Mike. It's probably a typo, but the title of this topic mis-spells "Zeiss" as "Ziess" and that could confuse some folks on the forum. I'm not nitpicking -- just trying to remind about the correct spelling.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Sorry, but your description really doesn't help us zero in on what model you have, which might make a difference in the film recommendations. The Ikonta line of cameras started in 1929, but many models were made up through the 1950s. Maybe you can help narrow down the specific model here:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Zeiss_Ikon_Ikonta

Best guess is that it would use "120" film... which is medium format, 70mm wide, and paper backed. To get started you'll need a "take up" spindle (or spool), too, in addition to the roll of film (which will provide you with a take up spindel for the next roll of film, as soon as you've finished shooting the first roll). Often those old cameras already have an old take up spindle in them.... left there from the last time it was used. If not they are pretty easy to find used, on eBay and elsewhere.

Even if the camera uses 127 or 620 film, it's still possible to use it, even though there are few sources for those films today. Actually, they are the same 70mm roll film as 120, just on different size spools. Many of the different "film types" were nothing more than a ploy by Kodak, to force you to buy their film and cameras. They kept coming up with new types, but other manufacturers would copy them at the earliest opportunity (when patents expired).

It is possible to get the necessary spindles for 127 and 620, then re-spool a roll of 120 film onto them. This might present a problem for the film processor, so it may be necessary to re-spool the film back onto the 120 spindle before sending it for processing. Some stores (I think B&H) offer one or two types of film already re-spooled to 127 and 620, and possibly some other film types.

BTW, medium format 70mm film was actually originally just movie film, cut to shorter lengths and in some cases backed by lightproof paper to use in roll film still cameras. It was simply split down the center to create 35mm, then split again to make 17.5mm and 16mm used in some "spy" cameras, as well and amateur movie cameras. It was then split one more time to create 8mm movie film.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Of course, all this is speculative until we know the actual camera model / film used. However, my understanding is the 620 and 120 film are identical - the only difference is in the roll. Several places on ebay sell either 620 rolls or outdated 620 film, so if you were willing to spend serious money on this project, and frankly I'm not sure why you were, you could still use a camera needing 620 film if you would
(1) buy some 120 film,
(2) re-spool it on 620 spools,
(3) take pictures,
(4) re-spool back on the original spools,
(5) send it in for processing
or you could skip the last two steps if you processed it yourself.

Sounds like a lot of work unless you have a really good reason for taking pictures with that camera ... and my sense is that cameras using 620 tended to be toward the bottom of Kodak's ladder at the time.

edit: in my early daze as a photographer, I had first a 127 camera and then a 620 camera. The 620 film was 2-1/4" wide, but 127 was close to the same width as 35mm.

second edit: I found an old 127 negative.
the width is 1-13/16" / 46mm

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Probably why I'm a biologist and work better with phonetic Latin words.

Do note that the spell checker in the interface here tags both "Zeiss" and "Ziess" as misspellings. So to some extant all of us are going to have problems from time to time.

Oh crap, I misspelled Leica once too. I have a Leitz Ortholux Microscope. I better stick to Japanese cameras. E-I, I-E, English (and German) are crazy languages, Spanish is a better language as far as spellings go. All letters except the rare strange silent ones are pronounced. Guess how my screen name Lamiaceae is pronounced (botanical Latin)?

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

This would be a good thread to start on http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php They specialize in film.

Just a few points:

While most of Kodak's cameras for 620 were less than stellar, the Medalist was world class. It apparently can be converted to 120, at some expense.

As one who has used roll film, 120 at present and 127 in the past, rolling 120 onto a 620 spool and then re-rolling the exposed film onto a 120 spool for processing would be a nasty business. Roll film is attached with tape to the paper backing only at the "beginning" of the roll; when exposed the free end is exposed and you'd have to keep the two curling strips, film and backing paper, untangled until you came to the "beginning" of the roll at which you'd attach the backing paper to the 120 spool and wind it and the film onto the spool. All in the dark, and trying to avoid leaving fingerprints on the emulsion. Cursing and sweating all the time.

If the camera in question is to be a user rather than a shelf queen, conversion to 120 if feasible would be a possibility and far preferable to the spool switcharoo.

There are those who cut down 120 film to "convert" it to 127, but you'd need to have the 127 paper backing for the frame numbers if using the red window, or the start arrows for auto framing cameras. Or create your own backing paper from a template of some sort. If you can find really opaque paper. Again, no fun in the dark. As an owner of a Komaflex S, a 127 SLR and a delightful collectible, I curse Kodak for "inventing" formats and then abandoning them.

Exposing 127 and then winding it onto a 120 spool for the convenience of the processor is a fool's errand. Roll film with its paper backing depends on a proper spool with opaque flanges to avoid edge flashing, at the least, of the film. There are several processors who will handle 127, or do it yourself. BW processing is easy and rewarding.

There are, as someone noted, sources of 127 film, and probably 620, but in the case of 127 at really high cost. My beloved Komaflex S needs expensive repair work, the cost of feeding the little beauty dissuades me from the expenditure.

And just imagine trying to feed a camera taking Kodak's 828 film? Forget about it!

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

Quite right. 127 yielded so called "super slides;" and that they were! The mounted slides would feed through an ordinary 35mm projector. I processed 127 Ektachrome E2, I think it was (reversal accomplished with a photoflood exposure - really!) and the results were stellar, especially if following ordinary 35 mm slides. Wowzer!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

GeargeH: Quite right. 127 yielded so called "super slides;" and that they were! The mounted slides would feed through an ordinary 35mm projector. I processed 127 Ektachrome E2, I think it was (reversal accomplished with a photoflood exposure - really!) and the results were stellar, especially if following ordinary 35 mm slides. Wowzer!"

I thought I was a bit old school retro by still having two 4x5" view cameras. All my personal digital pals just shoot digital. These days virtually no one even knows what a slide projector is. I've shot a few 4x5" Ektachromes and seen a few 8x10" ones. I wonder, did they make 8x10" Kodachrome sheet film? What would be awesome.

I never really liked my color photography until I went digital. I used to shoot mainly B&W film, Plus-x & Tri-x. Now I still "see" some shots as black & white and people wonder what I'm talking about.

Now I need to find a way to go from digital b&w to silver prints. I don't really like b&w ink or chromogenic prints. If I could get my digital files to B&W film I could print them my self. Some many wishes and time just keeps marching on.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 8 x 10 Kodachrome sheet film; there was 4 x 5 Kodachrome. Yeah, I shot mainly BW before digital because of cost constraints, but when I had no darkroom BW wasn't as appealing because of the lousy quality of affordable processing, so then I shot C41.

I'd love to try 4 x 5! I've seen really affordable view cameras, lenses and even proper tripods, used of course. But I don't have the space for a 4 x 5 enlarger. Accommodating a Besler 23 is stretching things.

BTW, check this site: http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.php It is an offshoot, so to speak, of http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php and deals with hybrid processes. It ought to be possible, for example, to make an inkjet print of a "negative" from a digital image on transparent film, and then contact print or enlarge that onto whatever silver gelatin paper you might want.

I agree that BW inkjet prints can't compare with silver gelatin prints. A couple years ago the Booth Western Art Museum in Cartersville, GA hosted a big Ansel Adams exhibit. Many iconic prints. In another part of the museum a number of prints by a truly capable Atlanta photographer were on display. His inkjet prints couldn't begin to compare with the "real" thing in the Adams exhibit. The lacked the luminosity of a really good silver print on fiber. At least IMHO.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'll check those sites out. Too much reading though keeps me from actually doing photography. I know what you mean about room thought. I have two 4x5" enlargers, a Beseler and an Omega. They are both disassembled though and in storage. If I wanted to I could print at my photo school. It is lonely back there in the wet labs, virtually no one prints negative anymore. Everyone is on computers doing Photoshop or Lightroom. Since I am not seeing a lot of classes for the Fall that will interest me I may spend some time in the darkroom. I have negatives that I've shot recently and processed but never seen as prints. And it might prompt me to pull out the 4x5" view cameras.