Film an historical curiosity ...

[pdh]

Yep this one is pretty basic and quite early. I'm guessing mid- to late-1930s.

The remarkable thing (to me anyway) is that it's almost pristine: no pinholes in the bellows, hardly any wear marks on any of the painted hardware, no fungus, shutter perfectly functional at all speeds (this type of old leaf shutter very often sticks at the lower speeds in cameras even half the age of this one)

The only thing that gives away that it was a well used camera (and it was well-used - I've seen the boxes of negatives) is that the door doesn't latch shut quite tightly and that marvellous bright finder is a bit hazy.

I took it out and shot a roll of Foma 200 in it today, and I ran some HP5 through it while I was away. I was surprised how much lower the contrast was than when I shoot HP5+ in any of my "modern" cameras. I'd always thought that the difference a lens makes to contrast was rather exaggerated, but clearly not.

 

[grebeman]

I was surprised how much lower the contrast was than when I shoot HP5+ in any of my "modern" cameras. I'd always thought that the difference a lens makes to contrast was rather exaggerated, but clearly not.

Hence the use by one of my favourite photographers, James Ravilious, of old uncoated Leica lenses on his M3. He was very fond of shooting against the light and he found that the lower contrast with uncoated lenses greatly aided his photographic style.

Barrie

 

[stillshunter]

I've established that the film is nitrate stock, by the way, which means that I basically have a fridge full of explosive media at the moment.

The nice thing about nitrate film is that once it's on fire, it'll continue to burn even under water or CO[sub]2[/sub], plus it gives off NO[sub]2[/sub] in volume when burning, which is exquisitely toxic if inhaled and can easily cause an acutely painful and unpleasant death.

Now this is the film you want to take into the Apocolypse - first frame the guys riding in on their horses - pale and otherwise - down through to sackcloth and ashes.
Niiiiice!

 

[pdh]

Hence the use by one of my favourite photographers, James Ravilious, of old uncoated Leica lenses on his M3. He was very fond of shooting against the light and he found that the lower contrast with uncoated lenses greatly aided his photographic style.

Barrie

Ah that's an interesting case as of course uncoated lenses have much much greater veiling flare into the light, but it would be interesting to know if one could see so much difference in flat light

 

[pdh]

Here's some from the rolls I shot while away.
Developed in D23 1:1 with a bit of KBr to combat fog.
Spotty and mottled, but then you'd be spotty and mottled if you'd been stuck in the bottom of a cardboard box in the dark in an old shed for 40 or 50 years ...

b20141007-2 by _loupe, on Flickr

b20141007-3 by _loupe, on Flickr

b20141007-4 by _loupe, on Flickr





​

 

[donlaw]

Love it!!