1930/40'S KODAK CAMERA. THE "JIFFY" SIX-20 SERIES II. HAS ORGINAL BOX IN GOOD USED CONDITION. THERE IS NO MANUAL OR CASE WITH THIS SALE. NO TEARS OR HOLES IN THE BELLOWS. $39.95
Free shipping to lower 48.
get for collectors of vintage cameras
original box
How many megapixels are we talking here?
Nice shot by the way!
A film camera. Megas I do not know
avemal wrote:
1930/40'S KODAK CAMERA. THE "JIFFY" SIX-20 SERIES II. HAS ORGINAL BOX IN GOOD USED CONDITION. THERE IS NO MANUAL OR CASE WITH THIS SALE. NO TEARS OR HOLES IN THE BELLOWS. $39.95
Free shipping to lower 48.
avemal, I have my dad's old Kodak Monitor which looks very similar to what I see shown in your posting. It took really beautiful photos.
This Kodak Monitor used Kodak 620 film which is basically a 2-1/4" x 2-3/4 or 3" format negative. Somewhere in this dump that I live in I have all of my Dad's 620 negatives and if I could find the old galvanized metal negative box, I would check the dimensions of a 620 negative. I used this camera back in the late 1950s and I used Kodak's Tri-X film (ASA 400) for the most part. Back then I did all my own film developing and printing. The good ole days.
-FiddleMaker
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
FiddleMaker wrote:
...Kodak 620 film which is basically a 2-1/4" x 2-3/4 or 3" format negative...Back then I did all my own film developing and printing. The good ole days.
-FiddleMaker
620 was the width, 2.25". The camera determined the length which went from less than 2.25" to more than that. I do not remember the different sizes. They were all great formats for enlarging.
You are right, they were the good old days. That is how to learn photography. Taking that film out of the hypo and seeing your pictures was magical. Watching the print come up in the developer was even more magical. Digital photography does not excite in this way but ultimately gives a better result. With film, you had to compose, time and expose the shot just right. You learned the art and science. Now, with digital, shoot a burst and pick the best. Then, develop that shot to perfection. The results are better, just not the magic.
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
FiddleMaker wrote:
...Kodak 620 film which is basically a 2-1/4" x 2-3/4 or 3" format negative...Back then I did all my own film developing and printing. The good ole days.
-FiddleMaker
620 was the width, 2.25". The camera determined the length which went from less than 2.25" to more than that. I do not remember the different sizes. They were all great formats for enlarging.
You are right, they were the good old days. That is how to learn photography. Taking that film out of the hypo and seeing your pictures was magical. Watching the print come up in the developer was even more magical. Digital photography does not excite in this way but ultimately gives a better result. With film, you had to compose, time and expose the shot just right. You learned the art and science. Now, with digital, shoot a burst and pick the best. Then, develop that shot to perfection. The results are better, just not the magic.
abc1234 wrote:
620 was the width, 2.25". The camera determined the length which went from less than 2.25" to more than that. I do not remember the different sizes. They were all great formats for enlarging.
You are right, they were the good old days. That is how to learn photography. Taking that film out of the hypo and seeing your pictures was magical. Watching the print come up in the developer was even more magical. Digital photography does not excite in this way but ultimately gives a better result. With film, you had to compose, time and expose the shot just right. You learned the art and science. Now, with digital, shoot a burst and pick the best. Then, develop that shot to perfection. The results are better, just not the magic.
620 was the width, 2.25". The camera determi... (
show quote)
My darkroom was a tad small so all the odors of the D-76, short stop, and hypo really got my attention at times. But the smell of those magical chemicals were certainly not offensive - they were part of the whole process. I found it easier to thread (in total darkness) the undressed roll of 620 film onto the stainless steel developing reel than to thread a strip of 35mm film. Both were challenging but I found the 620 film easier to work with. 4x5 sheet film from my Sinar-f was a different matter. -FiddleMaker
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
FiddleMaker wrote:
My darkroom was a tad small so all the odors of the D-76, short stop, and hypo really got my attention at times. But the smell of those magical chemicals were certainly not offensive - they were part of the whole process. I found it easier to thread (in total darkness) the undressed roll of 620 film onto the stainless steel developing reel than to thread a strip of 35mm film. Both were challenging but I found the 620 film easier to work with. 4x5 sheet film from my Sinar-f was a different matter. -FiddleMaker
My darkroom was a tad small so all the odors of th... (
show quote)
Agreed on the odors and how the sulfurous acid lingered on the skin. And 120 was easier than 35 mm.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.