Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: What film?  (Read 3210 times)

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: What film?
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2017, 05:26:26 PM »

Thanks for all your comments guys. My dad's family had a photography studio in western Oklahoma but I guess this roll of film didn't make it back to them. Here's a couple of examples...too bad they are so small.

Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1614
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: What film?
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2017, 06:31:45 PM »

Ah, the two faces make goblet photo...I remember doing this with my friends when I attended Pratt Institute in the seventies. Much fun.

Peter

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What film?
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2017, 06:35:57 PM »

As these are contact prints and looking at the size of the image, they appear to be from a 35 MM camera.


There were few 35mm cameras at that time that were affordable.  I think the main ones from the U.S. were the Argus (affordable) and the Kodak Retina (expensive.)  Judging from the images, I don't think they were made with an expensive camera.


Kent in SD
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:39:51 PM by Two23 »
Logged

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: What film?
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2017, 08:50:18 PM »


There were few 35mm cameras at that time that were affordable.  I think the main ones from the U.S. were the Argus (affordable) and the Kodak Retina (expensive.)  Judging from the images, I don't think they were made with an expensive camera.


Kent in SD

Probably not but these are scans of contact prints that are about an inch wide so it's hard to say. But I can't imagine him having an expensive camera in the war. It had to be disposable. 
Logged

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: What film?
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2017, 08:50:55 PM »

Ah, the two faces make goblet photo...I remember doing this with my friends when I attended Pratt Institute in the seventies. Much fun.

Peter

Ha!
Logged

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What film?
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2017, 09:14:56 PM »

Looking closely at the film jogged my memory--there are no sprocket holes.  There was another format that size popular at that time--127 roll film.  There were several Kodak (and Ansco) cameras of the period that would have worked then.  During WW1 the Kodak Vest Pocket was very popular with U.S. troops.  It folded up very compactly and shot 127.  What are the exact measurements of the negatives?  That's the biggest clue.

"The VPK took film negatives slightly larger than a postage stamp—just 1⅝ by 2½ inches. "
https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-vest-pocket-kodak-was-the-soldiers-camera/

Another candidate is 828 roll film--basically 35mm with out sprocket holes.  Often used in the "plain" Kodak Bantam camera:
"This permitted an image area of 28×40 mm"
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Bantam


Kent in SD
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 09:22:03 PM by Two23 »
Logged

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: What film?
« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2017, 09:47:55 PM »

Looking closely at the film jogged my memory--there are no sprocket holes.  There was another format that size popular at that time--127 roll film.  There were several Kodak (and Ansco) cameras of the period that would have worked then.  During WW1 the Kodak Vest Pocket was very popular with U.S. troops.  It folded up very compactly and shot 127.  What are the exact measurements of the negatives?  That's the biggest clue.

"The VPK took film negatives slightly larger than a postage stamp—just 1⅝ by 2½ inches. "
https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-vest-pocket-kodak-was-the-soldiers-camera/

Another candidate is 828 roll film--basically 35mm with out sprocket holes.  Often used in the "plain" Kodak Bantam camera:
"This permitted an image area of 28×40 mm"
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Bantam


Kent in SD

Kent I wish I had the negatives but all I have are these little prints. In my first post I put it by a ruler. Maybe it is the 127.
Logged

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What film?
« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2017, 09:52:24 PM »

A contact print will be exactly the same size as the original film negative.  The image dimensions will give you the format, and from that the film size.  You can then narrow down what camera was used because:  (1) likely made in America  (2) lens quality was not high (3) you know the time period  (4) you know the film format.


Kent in SD
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3151
Re: What film?
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2017, 03:26:56 PM »

The film could be 127. My mom had a 127 camera in the '50s that made approx. 27x40mm images. OTOH the contact prints Sharon has are tight enough that the sprocket holes may be cropped out.

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18782
Re: What film?
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2017, 05:15:03 PM »

The film could be 127. My mom had a 127 camera in the '50s that made approx. 27x40mm images. OTOH the contact prints Sharon has are tight enough that the sprocket holes may be cropped out.

-Dave-

Yeah, only HC-B had that borderline (?) fixation. And of course, later Hassy snappers, too. Clever of Victor to think of that! I like him more every day.

:-)

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What film?
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2017, 12:36:46 AM »

The second photo, of the railroad tracks, sure looks like roll film to me.  I've shot a lot of roll film the past seven years--120, 127, 828.


Kent in SD
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18782
Re: What film?
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2017, 08:39:51 AM »

The second photo, of the railroad tracks, sure looks like roll film to me.  I've shot a lot of roll film the past seven years--120, 127, 828.


Kent in SD

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18782
Re: What film?
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2017, 08:42:02 AM »

The second photo, of the railroad tracks, sure looks like roll film to me.  I've shot a lot of roll film the past seven years--120, 127, 828.


Kent in SD

I shot roll film all my pro life; please tell me how you make your deduction from one web repro of a contact print.

If anything, the white blob at the bottom right could suggest a sprocket hole...

Rob C

mediumcool

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
Re: What film?
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2017, 09:53:25 AM »

FFS folks, it’s 35mm! 1.5" wide; very much a Barnack-y 1:1.5 aspect ratio—what other data is needed? Show me any 127 camera with a 3:2 ratio! I’ll buy you dinner at my favourite Malaysian restaurant in Adelaide any time!

Talk about sprocket holes is, sadly, irrelevant—I have never seen a 35mm film holder available for sale which displayed sprockets!
Logged
FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 584
    • JNB54
Re: What film?
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2017, 11:26:14 AM »

Rob is this Church recognizable to you?

Am I not seeing flying buttresses? It's hard to tell where the tallest spire is attached because of the branches, but it is very large/tall indeed. These may be clues that could help someone with better knowledge of churches, cathedrals and architecture.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18782
Re: What film?
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2017, 11:47:01 AM »

Am I not seeing flying buttresses? It's hard to tell where the tallest spire is attached because of the branches, but it is very large/tall indeed. These may be clues that could help someone with better knowledge of churches, cathedrals and architecture.


It will probaby turn out to be in Paris, or, worse for me, the cathedral in Palma de Mallorca! Shame on me if it is!

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18782
Re: What film?
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2017, 11:53:26 AM »

FFS folks, it’s 35mm! 1.5" wide; very much a Barnack-y 1:1.5 aspect ratio—what other data is needed? Show me any 127 camera with a 3:2 ratio! I’ll buy you dinner at my favourite Malaysian restaurant in Adelaide any time!

Talk about sprocket holes is, sadly, irrelevant—I have never seen a 35mm film holder available for sale which displayed sprockets!

True, but making contacts doesn't require anything but a base and some glass. Who knows how long the film strips, or even if some were cut into single frames.

(One thing, Sharon, give the lads a chance and they will argue until well after the cows are already home. That's why women read more books than do men.)

;-)

Rob

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14919
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: What film?
« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2017, 01:04:12 PM »

True, but making contacts doesn't require anything but a base and some glass. Who knows how long the film strips, or even if some were cut into single frames.

(One thing, Sharon, give the lads a chance and they will argue until well after the cows are already home. That's why women read more books than do men.)

;-)

Rob
Both points constitute the truest things expressed in this thread so far.

 ;)

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: What film?
« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2017, 02:17:38 PM »

 :) Argue away. It's been interesting.
Logged

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: What film?
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2017, 03:17:04 PM »

Since you all did so well identifying the church photo (cough/cough), I'll put up another. Is this a kiln?

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up