Tag Archives: found

Phound Photos Volume 13

Kodak Max 400 found in a Canon Sure Shot Ace. The film canister doesn’t give any clues about the date. The camera is from 1988.

Some young ladies having fun trying on prom(?) dresses.

Weird to think they're probably in their 40s now.

Weird to think they’re probably in their 40s now.


The film was horrendously jammed. With a good battery, the film wouldn’t rewind and it was at the end of the roll so it couldn’t wind either.
Double exposure

Double exposure


The extra exposure from the back being opened created what looks like the Sabattier effect.

The extra exposure from the back being opened created what looks like the Sabattier effect.


An even more extreme example of the effect.

An even more extreme example of the effect.


Cropping out the overexposure and a little tweaking of levels and this could be a nice image.

Cropping out the overexposure and a little tweaking of levels and this could be a nice image.


There are twelve frames with something. A few of those are salvageable as “normal” images. To get the film out, I had to work in the dark bag and cut it loose from the canister. Then I was able to feed it around the take-up spool in the wind direction until it separated from the spool.

    Some notes & random thoughts

  • The film has a really pronounced curl along its length so it was difficult to get it into the scanner. While researching how to get rid of the curl, I came across a suggestion to iron it. I used a black portion of the film to try it. I did about five seconds and the film picked up the texture of the cotton cloth (old summer-weight PJs, not textured) and the table beneath it. I do not recommend ironing curly film. By inserting the film emulsion down, apex of curl up (opposite Canon’s directions), I was able to get the film holder to make it flat enough to scan. It’s easy to flip the images in post. The scans are OK but the film is in a sleeve inside a large hardcover book. I’m curious how long it will take to flatten. I found some wrinkly manuals I’d put in there maybe a year ago (and forgotten) and they look great.
  • I really want to experiment and figure out how the pseudo-solarization came about and repeat it on purpose. On the first yellow image above, I think the left part was on the spool towards the back of the camera and the image was increasingly shielded by the take up spool as you move right. The same for the rotated portrait format image. I’m guessing the landscape one was a lower frame number so it was more shielded. I’ll have to check the numbers. That the effect is yellow is a good starting point for reproducing the effect. Exposed through orange tinted backing, yellow’s RGB complement… I have a lot of research to do.
  • The camera is a little weird and kind of cool for an f/3.5 wide angle P&S from the 1980s. It has an “Easy Viewer”, a low-angle viewfinder like the Photura, and the left side slides off to become an infrared remote. I have a battery and some dead film for transport testing. If it works, I’ll shoot with it and feature it soon.

52 Cameras: # 170 — Sony DSC-H7


I glossed over a lot of the features, face detect, in-camera effects like sepia and saturation, exposure compensation besides bracketing, etc. Even Sony divided the information into a setup guide, instruction manual, and handbook — probably 250 pages worth.



Phound Photos Volume 9 has some of the found images from the memory stick.


18 Jan 2019 - I used GIMP to fix the perspective & adjusted the levels.  The deep shadows fooled the meter.

18 Jan 2019 – I used GIMP to fix the perspective & adjusted the levels. The deep shadows fooled the meter.


21 Jan 2019 - Waiting for moonrise.  The camera biffed the white balance (WB) but GIMP fixed it up.

21 Jan 2019 – Waiting for moonrise. The camera biffed the white balance (WB) but GIMP fixed it up.


28 Jan 2019 - M at Plaza Cafe.

28 Jan 2019 – M at Plaza Cafe.


10 Apr 2019 - Macro is hard in high wind.  The camera did a great job during a rare lull.

10 Apr 2019 – Macro is hard in high wind. The camera did a great job during a rare lull.


10 Apr 2019 - Lupines (I think) in the yard.  Bokeh's not great but not bad.

10 Apr 2019 – Lupines (I think) in the yard. Bokeh’s not great but not bad.


10 Apr 2019 -  Shot through a filthy window at max zoom (78/465mm equiv). I tweaked WB & shadows.

10 Apr 2019 – Shot through a filthy window at max zoom (78/465mm equiv). I tweaked WB & shadows.

Phound Photos Volume 12

I was so stoked when I saw the old 3000 speed film inside the Polaroid 100 with the Zeiss viewfinder, I didn’t thoroughly go through the kit. Inside the cold clip was this old sepia Polaroid print.

Looks like an airport terminal.

Looks like an airport terminal.

On the back is what looks like the letter ‘H’ and the number 815341. It seems to be part of the print and not a catalog number or something added later.

I started looking up what the codes mean. What I found referenced other information on the back of the print. I hadn’t seen anything but shining a flashlight on it, I could see more information. I mangled the scan to get enough contrast but here it is.

Hidden (as in faded to near invisibility) information.

Hidden (as in faded to near invisibility) information.


Upper left, lying on its back is a ‘5’. This was the fifth print in the pack.

“POLACOLOR ® 75 SPEED TYPE 108”. Interesting. This isn’t sepia, it’s color, just really faded.

The blob at the far right goes with the manufacturing code — it should end with a letter. I didn’t chop off the scan, the letter is just badly placed and only half on the print.

According to this document (820K PDF), ‘H’ is the month of manufacture, so, August. The first digit is the year of manufacture, so ‘8’, but 19_what_8? It would seem to be 1968 since the same document says “renamed Type 108 Polacolor 2, 1975”.

Screen grab from the document.  I'm confused

Screen grab from the document. I’m confused

The example shown in the document for Polaroid Land Pack Film is confusing. The example serial number is “H612591 P” and they give August, 1976. It seems that the example should say “Polacolor 2” since it’s after 1975. Unless they mean it was renamed to “Type 108 Polacolor” in 2, 1975 (as in February, 1975)? Or maybe the film name change doesn’t correspond to what’s printed on the back of the print?

OK, I will have to dig more for what decade. This other document (155K PDF) from 1998, shows better what the other numbers mean.

The next 2 digits in H 815341, the “15”, are numbers showing what machine made the film pack. The next 2 digits, “34” are more useful. Using the lookup table on page 7 of the 2nd document, “34” means the ‘A’ shift on the 12th of the month.

So, this print was made on machine 15, during ‘A’ shift, on 12 August, in either 1968 or 1978.

I’ll try dating the 3000 film that was in the camera. Of course, like Midge, the print may have nothing to do with the camera.

Update (still 1 March 2019): The 3000 film wasn’t as old as I thought. It was made 10 May 2001 so it’s no help trying to date the photo. At least I know for later films, the date codes work.

2nd update (still 1 March 2019):
Heritage Auctions had Andy Warhol Polaroids on Polacolor 2 and it does say it.

Polacolor 2 does say "Polacolor 2". H107621

Polacolor 2 does say “Polacolor 2”. H107621


They say “circa 1970s” for the photo but the film Warhol used was made in August of 1981. It can’t be 1971 because the film wasn’t labeled “Polacolor 2” until after 1975.

Finally, I’m happy enough with the evidence to say my print’s film was made 12 August 1968.

Phound Photos Volume 11

I recently acquired an old Canon Digital Rebel. I don’t have a charger yet so I haven’t used it but it has a CompactFlash card in it with images from July 2013 to August 2015.

Whoever the photographer is, I hope she sticks with it.

Probably San Diego based on a ship in another image.

Probably San Diego based on a ship in another image.


Nice macro.

Nice macro.


A person of discerning taste I see.

A person of discerning taste I see.

Christmas ornament selfie with festive nails.

Christmas ornament selfie with festive nails.


Out of focus but this is a cool shot.

Out of focus but this is a cool shot.

Phound Photos Volume 10

Found photos sort of. I didn’t actually get any images that I can be sure of (stare at them for a while and you start to “see” things) but the scans are kind of cool.

I got a box camera recently and it had three film holders in it — 4X5 inch glass plate holders with dark slides to be more precise. One of the holders had plates in it.

There isn’t much info out there about processing old glass plates. Tons about scanning or making prints or preserving glass negatives that have already been processed but not developing old negatives. I processed them with Arista B&W paper developer from Freestyle, Kodak stop, and Ilford Rapid Fixer. The developer did the job — the exposed silver in the emulsion converted to metallic (black) silver. The trouble is, it was all exposed. Somewhere along the line, the dark slides had been removed.

This is a positive from the scanned negative.

This is a B&W positive from the first scanned negative.

I had to scan in two passes since the light source on the CanoScan 9000f isn’t wide enough. The exposure wasn’t quite the same but I was able to play with the levels and get it pretty close. I glued the half-images together in Photoshop Elements 15. Version 15 is kind of a POS (not point-of-sale if you know what I mean). It only has panorama stitch in “guided” mode and it doesn’t guess very well. It lined the images up OK but I could not get the exposure of the layers right. I ended up doing it manually with a huge blank canvas and two layers. I made one layer semi-transparent and picked a dot as my alignment point. Nudge, nudge, too far, back, SWEET! It’s not perfect but pretty close for moving the plate on the scanner manually without a straight edge. Once the layers were aligned, I set the transparency back to opaque, picked one layer and tweaked the mid-tone level .01 at a time until I couldn’t see the seam. Since it’s a gray scale scan, .01 would be one hundredth of 255 (0=black and 255=white).

I got a wild hare (hair?) and did the second image in color. I had to scan one half twice to get the exposure close. The Canon software “snaps” to an exposure level depending on how much light or dark is in the selected scan area — move the selection area in or out and the exposure varies in a huge jump. With the color information, more overlap, and using a straight edge this time (an SX-70 print), Photoshop did a much better job stitching the halves together and I didn’t have to do it manually.

This is a color positive from the second scanned negative.

This is a color positive from the second scanned negative.

Images of the camera and slide holders will have to wait until I feature the camera on 52 Cameras. I have some big film (not 4×5″ big, but big), print paper like I used for the cardboard box pinhole camera, and some Instax wide so it’ll be a fun project.

Note: Not my fingerprints — I used gloves. I’ve read enough to know gelatin emulsion on glass is really fragile and LOVES fingerprints.

Phound Photos Volume 9

These were on the memory card of a Sony DSC-H7. I’ll review the camera shortly since I know I can power it up and get things off of it. I scored the camera from Goodwill Central Coast in Salinas, CA.

There were 350 images total on the card, from June 2011 to November 2012. As usual, when I review the camera, I’ll link to this page so if the people run across the blog or YouTube channel, they can get their pictures.

They have a bird.

They have a bird.


And a water dog.

And a water dog.


Who also likes to hike.

Who also likes to hike.


Sometimes the dog hikes with mom.

Sometimes the dog hikes with mom.


Dr Mycology makes a determination.

Dr Mycology makes a determination.


I think that's Mt. Ranier.

I think that’s Mt. Ranier.


Yep, that's Ranier.

Yep, that’s Ranier.


I love the light in this one.

I love the light in this one.


It still feels weird posting other people’s images. Really old ones are easier. So far I’ve been lucky. No Jimmy Hoffa or Loch Ness monster but also no porn or wrecks or other creepy stuff. Maybe someday I’ll actually reunite someone with pictures they thought were lost forever.

52 Cameras: # 157 — Sony DSC-V3




The memory stick came with it so I checked for found photos. The only thing on it was a movie of a movie being played on a laptop or portable DVD player-type thing.
MMA fight from 2012 - Henderson v Diaz

MMA fight from 2012 – Henderson v Diaz


Zoe

Zoe


The colors are really saturated even without turning it up.

The colors are really saturated even without turning it up.


Noisy in low light.  J-Man took this one.

Noisy in low light. J-Man took this one.


Katydid

Katydid


Flowers in the yard

Flowers in the yard

Goober doing his Dr. Evil imitation

Goober doing his Dr. Evil imitation

Phound Photos Volume 8

This was the found roll I developed with the film I shot in the Canon T50. The film base also came out green on this roll. The colors came out well on the scanner except for the red light leak-looking areas. Thinking about it, I used a Paterson tank I hadn’t used before. Maybe I had a leak in addition to the problem with development.

The film is Costco Fujicolor Superia X-Tra 400. Found in a Minolta Explorer Freedom Zoom EX.

Is this thing on?  AH!  I'm blind!  I adjusted the levels -- it was really blown out from the flash.

Is this thing on? AH! I’m blind! I adjusted the levels — it was really blown out from the flash.

Mom and dad?

Mom and dad?

Burnt weenies and a can of beans.

Burnt weenies and a can of beans.

Camping is fun.  :-|

Camping is fun. :-|

Cool dog.

Cool dog.

The whole roll came out. Anyone who knows these people or who are these people can contact me via the YouTube comments for the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer EX and get their images.

Phound Photos Volume 7

There is only one image so far but I’m really excited for a couple of reasons.

I bought a box of old movie films (Super-8 & 16mm) and it also came with boxes of color slides. These aren’t buy-them-at-the-gift-shop slides but photos someone took on various vacations. Inside the big boxes are small plastic Kodak slide boxes with labels written on them. They are somewhat jumbled but the small boxes are labeled with where the photos were taken and the recipient.

It’s a little sad thinking about why the boxes are labeled this way. Was the photographer downsizing in his old age or moving to assisted living (we used to call them “retirement homes”)? Did he die and this is how the slides were to be divided? The movies have extra labels indicating they were digitized. I hope the slides were too before they ended up at a Goodwill.

This is a fairly large collection and from what I can tell, he was a talented photographer. I’m not talking about a Vivian Maier kind of find, but a fascinating puzzle.

The box this slide came from is labeled “Hawaii For Holly”.

"Hawaii For Holly"

“Hawaii For Holly”

It’s a lousy scan but here’s the second reason I’m stoked — I used an old slide duplicator, an “Accura Zoom Duplivar”. I got it when I bought a different lot of equipment. The duplicator had a Minolta SR mount on it so I hadn’t really thought about using it. I was making myself crazy trying to find an M42 to EOS adapter — I have a couple and couldn’t find either — so I used some of my down time while sick this last week to organize the boxes and boxes of stuff in my office. It still looks like a mess but it’s a mess where I can better find things. Any way, putting lens adapters, macro tubes and such into their own bin, I came across the slide duplicator. Checking to see if I could cannibalize parts I realized the Minolta mount is also an adapter. The slide duplicator actually has a T-mount.

I also have, and miraculously found, a T-mount adapter for the Canon. It works but the crop factor (1.6) from the smaller APS-C sensor on the Canon 60D narrows the field of view too much. I’d have to take multiple shots of each slide and stitch them together. I might as well use the flatbed and the whole point is to get away from the cruel tedium of doing slides and negatives on the scanner. The 9000f is a good scanner but the workflow is error-prone and soooooo time consuming omigodjustkillmenow.

Plan C: I have a full frame digital which hasn’t been featured yet on 52 cameras. I also bought a Canon EOS to Sony E-mount adapter.

Voila!  Frankenkludge.

Voila! Frankenkludge.

It’s made up from these bits plus the Sony: EOS to E-mount adapter, T-Mount to EOS adapter, T-mount slide duplicator.

The bits...

The bits…

I inserted the slide, held the whole rig up to an LED bulb in the kitchen and pressed the shutter. The focus and light both need a little work but not bad for a quick pass/fail test. The slide duplicator doesn’t really have focusing but it does have settings from 1.0 (life sized) to 2.0 which I haven’t played with yet. Stacking adapters may be introducing some error as well.

I’ll tinker some more and report back here.

Phound Photos Volume 6

I found this roll in a Pentax Zoom 90-WR Date. I purchased the camera on 14 December 2016 as part of a 15 camera lot from Goodwill of Orange County. The images seem to be from California City, CA.

Considering that it’s been in the camera for nearly 20 years and my color chemicals are almost exhausted, it’s a miracle I got anything.

"American Mercantile" film by 3M so it's probably Ferrania.

“American Mercantile” film by 3M so it’s probably Ferrania.


18-ish frames total. 3 of the 18 are partially ruined from light exposure.
He loves this truck.  Half of the images I got feature the truck.

He loves this truck. Half of the images I got feature the truck.


I'm guessing this is the proud owner.

I’m guessing this is the proud owner.


I usually hate date stamps on photos but in this case it was really useful.
Oneida for Christmas!

Oneida for Christmas!


Mom and dad?

Mom and dad?


Truck guy's younger siblings?

Truck guy’s younger siblings?


Happy 77th!  He must be OK, he's Pisces.

Happy 77th! He must be OK, he’s Pisces.


It’s always tempting to make up some sordid backstory about strangers (like I do to amuse myself in restaurants) but they seem nice so I’ll just leave this here.