Tag Archives: Kodak

52 Cameras: # 181 — Kodak Brownie Starflex




Barrancas at Pojoaque Pueblo

Barrancas at Pojoaque Pueblo


Light through the leaves

Light through the leaves


Dramatic sky

Dramatic sky


This image was in the video but this is before I cropped & cleaned up. There’s a head in the upper left. He noticed I was shooting a film camera and we talked a bit. His name’s Siddho and he’s a photographer in Santa Fe.
Siddho's head

Siddho’s head




A shout out to Bob for giving me the film. He’s the same guy who lent me his Nikon FM.
Original price (sticker underneath)

Original price (sticker underneath)


Later price and then 1/2 price

Later price and then 1/2 price


Exposure instructions right on the backing paper

Exposure instructions right on the backing paper


It performed well for film 37 years past its "develop by" date

It performed well for film 37 years past its “develop by” date

Developing Ancient Polaroid Pack Film Negatives

Update 1 March 2019
Trying to date a print I found with the camera, I looked up the date codes on the back of the positives. The film is not as old as I thought. It’s Type 667, the successor to the 107C film referenced below. Using the documents from the Phound Photo entry, the B&W film with manufacturing code E1V142801H is:

Made after 1996 (from the format of the code).
E=made in May.
1=2001 (the first 1 year after 1996).
V=made at the Vale of Leven plant in Scotland.
14=identifies it was made on machine #14.
28=shift A on 10th of month.
01=component change (I have no idea what this means).
H=Type 667 film (coaterless, 10 frames per pack).
End of Update 1 March 2019



I got another pack film camera, a 100 with the Zeiss rangefinder from a 250. It had a pack of Polaroid Type 107 3000 B&W film in it. I pulled one on the very long odds that the developing pods might be good. Nope, dry as a bone. I put a battery in the camera and tried the shutter and it seems to work fine.

I pulled the shutter test frame out of the camera in a dark bag and tried developing it. I’d read somewhere that you could develop the negatives from pack film but I’d never seen an example or tried it. On one Flickr discussion group, someone suggested you could treat it like old Kodak Panatomic-X. So, I had to dig for developing info about one extinct film (according to Wikipedia, Panatomic-X hasn’t been made since 1987) so I could try it on another extinct film.

The instructions I got with the 107 film in the camera call for coating the prints. The coater-less version, 107C, came out in 1978. I don’t know if Polaroid kept making 107 after 107C came out but even 107C hasn’t been made since 1998. If I’d realized it was that old I might have saved a frame. Probably not, the first thing people do when looking at an old camera in a thrift shop is to open it. Any way, the instructions I found called for HC-110 dilution B (1+31) at 68F for 4.5 minutes.

I don’t have any normal tanks that can develop large format negatives. The Polaroid image (excluding the border) is 7.3 X 9.5cm. In one of those “buy the lot to get the one thing you want” purchases, I got a Cibachrome color processing drum (PDF manual). It was made to do prints without using a series of open trays. Cibachrome was an awesome process, direct to positive, full color prints. Sadly, I learned about it too late. It too is an extinct product.

This is the shutter test shot. Developed in HC-110, dilution H (1+63) at 68F for 9 minutes. I frequently use half the concentration for twice the time. It’s a little gentler on old negatives (old paper negative in this case) and it helps to have a little time leeway. The results are pretty similar to HC-110 B. This was a go/no-go test so getting anything was the goal.

Negative image taken with my iPhone.

Negative image taken with my iPhone.

No idea what it is but it’s not my target, the kitchen lights. I tried bleaching the negative but all I did was take off some of the emulsion.

A proper scan at 600 DPI after the bleaching attempt.

A proper scan at 600 DPI after the bleaching attempt.


The scan inverted.  Still no idea -- probably nothing.

The scan inverted. Still no idea — probably nothing.

I had nothing but variables: an unknown film, shot in an unknown camera, developed with an unknown process. I know, I’ll use a different camera I haven’t tested!

I pulled the remaining three frames out of the film pack and put them into a light tight box. Wrangling a Polaroid and a box in a small changing bag is an exercise in patience. Once that was done, I removed the extra paper, developing pods, and positives, leaving just the negatives emulsion side up (I think) in the box. The next magic act was getting a negative out of the box and into the test camera, a Kodak Autographic No. 3A (1918-27) which is nearly as big as the Polaroid.

I shot a test and then psyched myself out that I didn’t have the emulsion facing the subject. Just to be sure, I put the beast back in the dark bag, turned the film over and shot it again. I shot the same subject so I still don’t know if I had it right the first time.

My meter app doesn’t have ISO 3000 so I guesstimated that the film would have lost some speed and used 2500. I used the fastest shutter on the old Kodak, 1/100 second and f/16. That was really fortunate since the aperture on the camera is labeled in US (Universal System) units not f-stops. I have a screen grab of an old table comparing aperture systems somewhere. At least I didn’t have to stop everything and find it because I remembered that f-stops and US cross each other at 16

I was getting impatient so I used HC-110 B for 4.5 minutes this time. The framing is terrible but the blobs of dark on the negative are definitely the kitchen lights.

A negative!

A negative!

Fugly, but it's a photograph.

Fugly, but it’s a photograph.

Did I prove anything? Yeah sort of. I know old Polaroid negatives will produce an image. Is it useful information? Probably not to anyone but me but that was the point. Photography forums (fora?) are as bad as Apple discussion groups. There’s always some snarky little bitch who says, “Why waste time? Just go buy X”. That misses the point. I want to know. I already know I can go buy something — there’s no challenge in that.

Process Kodacolor-X as Black & White

I recently shot with an old Carlton 127 camera. The only film I had was a roll of new-old stock Kodacolor-X.

ASA/ISO 80 -- Develop by Feb. 1974.

ASA/ISO 80 — Develop by Feb. 1974.


Kodacolor-X is process C-22 film, extinct except for a couple of specialty labs who mix their own chemicals from scratch. Since I shot the film (not a precious roll of family photos found in a relative’s attic), it’s not worth the price or the wait to send it off. I’ve read here and there about cross-processing old color print film in B&W chemicals and even had some success (-ish) with Kodachrome. Worth a shot so here’s what I did:

I used Kodak HC-110 developer at dilution H. H is an unofficial mix using 1 part developer concentrate to 63 parts water. That’s the US strength developer where dilution B is 1+31.

I used a Yankee plastic tank and lower reel that can adjust for 127 film. For 127, the tank takes 420mL of solution.

Everything was done at 20C/68F. I developed for 10 minutes agitating the first 15 seconds (about 10 inversions) and then 4 inversions every minute for the remainder of the time.

One minute stop bath, using Kodak Indicator Stop at 16mL/liter, inverting the first 15 seconds (10 inversions) and then letting it sit for the remainder of the time.

Ilford Rapid fixer mixed to normal film strength (1+4) for 5 minutes using the same agitation as the developer.

I rinsed using the Ilford method: fill tank & invert 5X; Re-fill & invert 10X; Re-fill & invert 20X. I gave it an extra 20X rinse with some Photo-Flo for good measure and hung it to dry.

The base is really dark orange but Kodacolor-X doesn’t have the nasty, black anti-halation layer that Kodachrome has, and it scanned OK. Boosting the gain on the scanner brings out the noise and grain, but not too bad for what I was working with. I used VueScan software. The Canon software won’t do negatives without the film holder but I don’t have a 127 holder.

I’ll try scanning again after trying a bleaching step, soaking the film in fixer with ascorbic acid (vitamin C) added.

Kodacolor negative.

Kodacolor negative.


Inversion of the snapshot.

Inversion of the snapshot.

52 Cameras: # 125 — Kodak Six-20

For lending me the camera — Thanks Dave!

Amazing collection of Kodak catalogs at Kodakcollector.com.

A clarification: The camera could be as late as 1934. The catalog years overlap — 1932-33, 1933-34, 1934-35. The 34-35 catalog is the first one to show the “Action Front” push button bed release. The 32-33 catalog is the only one that explicitly states the camera is available in black or brown but I don’t know if later model years had the color choice. If it is from 33-34, the doublet was the low-end lens with an f/6.3 or f/4.5 anastigmat as an upgrade and a Diodak shutter option which added 1/10 second to the speeds of the Kodon.



View of the Truchas Mountains.

View of the Truchas Mountains.

The scalloping at the top of the next image is from re-spooling the film. I didn’t have it perfectly parallel to the 620 spool rim so the film & paper came off at an angle and wrinkled.

No idea -- it looks like water.

No idea — it looks like water.

Taken with the tape and poster board seals. Still leaked.

Trinity in the sun.  Instax with the tape/cardboard seals.

Trinity in the sun. Instax with the tape/cardboard seals.

Trinity on the sun porch.  No leaks!

Trinity on the sun porch. No leaks!




That’s it for posted images taken with this camera. About the kludges follows.

Dark room and an LED flashlight inside show just how leaky the bellows is.

Dark room and an LED flashlight inside show just how leaky the bellows is.

Sketching out the "over bellows".

Sketching out the “over bellows”.

Getting the cardboard between the bellows and the folding front was a challenge. Good view of the aperture setting: U.S. 8=f/11, 16=f/16, 32=f/22, 64=f/32.

Nothing like a closeup to show how dusty it is.

Nothing like a closeup to show how dusty it is.

I thought I was done here.

I thought I was done here.

The back is 6 X 9cm and the front is sized to let the Instax frame slide in.

Instax Mini adapter.

Instax Mini adapter.

I still got light leaks between the top and body. I tried yet more tape before giving up and shrouding the whole thing with my dark bag.

Getting kind of silly with the tape.

Getting kind of silly with the tape.

I don’t have a proper darkroom so here’s the process. I taped up the Instax film box to use as a transfer station.

  1. Put the film in the box.
  2. The box and camera go into the dark bag. Remove the film, remove one frame from the cartridge, insert it in the holder in the camera, and put the cartridge back in the box.
  3. Meter, carefully take the camera out of the bag, and shroud everything but the lens and shutter trigger.
  4. Take the shot and put the camera back in the bag.
  5. Take the frame out of the holder, slide it back in the Instax cartridge, and put the cartridge in the light-tight box.
  6. Put the Instax camera in the bag, load the cartridge, take it out, cover the lens, and shoot it to run the print through the Instax rollers.

I got turned around a couple of times and loaded the Instax frame with the image side towards the lens. I burned through most of a box of 10 prints to get two OK images but it was still a lot cheaper and faster than using negative film (re-spool, reload, process) for each iteration.

So I’ve had this film in my freezer for a while…

Kodak High Contrast Copy Film

Kodak High Contrast Copy Film

Type 5455 to be more specific

Type 5455 to be more specific

Information is pretty sparse for this film. I found a datasheet for “Recordak Micro-File Film Types 5455 & 7455” that seems to be the stuff.

Not knowing how to properly read a film datasheet yet, I searched around and found some info on Type 5069 and started there. If it’s similar, this film was originally rated for ~ ISO 25 (or less — specs for microfilm film are strange). Bracketing my first 24 exposure roll, this stuff is about ISO 6.

Tree bark.  Nikon FA set to ISO 25 and +1 exposure compensation (ISO 12).

Tree bark. Nikon FA set to ISO 25 and +1 exposure compensation (ISO 12).

Cloudy sky through the trees.

Cloudy sky through the trees.

Wormy wood.

Wormy wood.

I used Kodak HC110 developer dilution ‘B’ at 68F for 6 minutes, agitating the 1st 30 seconds and then 5 seconds every 30 after that. Definitely too much agitation for this film. I got nasty over-development marks at the sprocket holes. Next time I’ll try a much weaker dilution, less agitation, and longer time. I’ve also read that highly dilute Rodinal works well and Photographer’s Formulary makes TD-3 for techpan films. I still have about 97 feet so it will be fun to experiment.

I used Canon Scan Gear for the first two and VueScan for the last one.

Once I learn what I’m doing with this film, I think it will turn out some great exposures.

52 Cameras: # 107 — Kodak Mickey-Matic

I got about four reasonably well-exposed frames counting the found image in the video. The ones that are properly exposed are really saturated, particularly the blues. Ferrania is known for really saturated colors. This review of Scotch Color films from 1991 (PDF) says they’re really saturated and this camera-wiki article says Ferrania was sold under the Scotch brand. Conclusive? Not by a long shot. Strong evidence? I think so. Enough about the film, on to some photos.

I scanned at 2400DPI, which is low for tiny 110 negatives. The old film (1990-ish) was a gamble so I didn’t want to wait forever for little or no results.

Cropped to exclude scanning buffer and speck & cat hair cleanup but no color or exposure correction.

Cropped to exclude scanning buffer and speck & cat hair cleanup but no color or exposure correction.

Ye olde colorful herb pots.  One of my go-tos besides the cats.

Ye olde colorful herb pots. One of my go-tos besides the cats.

What a coincidence, it’s Goober! I included it for a reason. Going back through frames I excluded, I found something interesting. This frame was cropped pretty tight on the scanner. The blacks coming out red are on the images where the scanner software cranked up the exposure. Apparently, 3 layers of dye + bright yellow backing = red.

Scanner boost for underexposure.

Scanner boost for underexposure.

The Canon Scan Gear driver doesn’t give a nice gradient. Selecting a larger area to find the frames (auto select is useless for 110) looks like the image below. Moving the frame lines in, at some point the software “finds” the frame and jumps to the higher exposure (image above).

Selecting a wider area gives a better idea of what's really on the negative.

Selecting a wider area gives a better idea of what’s really on the negative.

I do manual versioning when I monkey with images. Sometimes I simplify file names before uploading. The honking file name of the image below gives an idea of the workflow. “Untitled-13b_crop_defuzz_BWurban_autoCont_1024”. “Untitled-” because I’m lazy and let PS name the imports — cameras get their own folders and multiple rolls get folders under that so I don’t need to care about the base file name. The “13” is the order they came off of the scanner and not the actual frame number. That’s something I should change. If I like a frame and want to re-scan at a higher resolution, I have to hold the negs up and find it instead of being able to go right to it in the sleeve. ‘B’ is the 2nd version of the scan. The “_crop” is to remove scanner margin. The software usually gets 35mm and 120 right so it’s not always there. If I crop again for aesthetics, there will be another “_crop”. “_defuzz” is the version after dust and cat hair cleanup. Canon’s FARE usually makes things worse so I don’t use it. “_BWurban” is convert to black & white using the “Urban/Snapshots” preset. “_autoCont” is PS’s automatic contrast correction. I tried a bunch of manual tweaks but I liked it better. Finally, “_1024” is resizing to 1024 on the longest side for upload. Frequently, I’ll use a percent instead and that looks like “_30pct”.

Might as well have some fun with it.

Might as well have some fun with it.

In the video but I really like it and I didn't have to dork with it.

In the video but I really like it and I didn’t have to dork with it.

I’ve been meaning to talk about workflow and it’s a really simple camera so there wasn’t a lot to say about it. My Polaroid project has hit a big snag too so I needed to step away from it for a while. That’s the nice way of saying PROCRASTINATION!

52 Cameras: # 104 — Kodak Signet 35

Color correction on all of them for the old film and some dust cleanup in Photoshop.

Exposure corrections on this one.  Bright sky from within a dark restaurant on Central in Albuquerque.

Exposure corrections on this one. Bright sky from within a dark restaurant on Central in Albuquerque.

The neighborhood irrigation pond.  A little contrast boost.

The neighborhood irrigation pond. A little contrast boost.

Flowers outside the Santa Fe Bar and Grill.

Flowers outside the Santa Fe Bar and Grill.

Roses in the back yard.

Roses in the back yard.

M put together a beautiful lounging area.

M put together a beautiful lounging area.

Phound Photos Volume 5

I bought a Kodak Instamatic 104 as part of a camera lot and it came with a Kodachrome-64 cartridge. I had tried processing Kodachrome as black and white before but got nothing. I tried again using Kodak HC-110 and Ilford Rapid Fixer and the film had some retrievable images.

Christmas portrait.

Christmas portrait.

Looks a bit like Richard Karn as Al on "Home Improvement".

Looks a bit like Richard Karn as Al on “Home Improvement”.

Another Eastern Air Lines photo.

Another Eastern Air Lines photo.

Nice hat.

Nice hat.

Palm trees.  Makes sense -- Eastern was headquartered in Miami.

Palm trees. Makes sense — Eastern was headquartered in Miami.

The camera itself isn’t any help dating these images. The Instamatic 104 was made from 1965 to 1968. Kodachrome 64 in 126 format was made from 1974 to 1993. That at least sets an early limit — the photos are from no earlier than 1974. Eastern Air Lines went out of business in 1991 so that more or less sets an upper date limit. Going by hair and clothing styles, I’d guess late 70s or early 80s.

Processing Kodachrome as black and white creates really dense negatives, even after removing the anti-halation layer. I didn’t have to do anything special to get the remjet off — a pre-wash did most of the work and an extra-thorough rinse at the end did the rest. The negatives are also really orange which is why the digitally inverted negatives are blue.

My scanner couldn’t transmit enough light through the negatives to get anything useful. Even normal use of a slide projector wasn’t bright enough. I ended up putting individual negatives in a slide frame (Kodachrome is also really thick and really curly) and taping it over the front of the slide projector lens. I used macro mode on the Nikon AW100 to photograph the negatives. I shot at an angle so the pattern of the bulb didn’t show through and de-skewed in Photoshop. The light wasn’t consistent across the frame so there is some vignetting, showing as a lighter halo when the images were inverted.

I found a couple of articles about bleaching the negatives using C-41 bleach or fixer with ascorbic acid. I’ll try that when I can and add results here.

Developing notes:

All except running water rinses at 20C/68F. Yankee tank with 2 adjustable reels using just the lower reel. Any 35mm setup will work. 126 is the same width with different perforations.

For the pre-wash, I ball-parked 68F using my finger under the tap and ran water into the tank for 2 minutes. A lot of yellow water with black flecks came out at first. Drained and set the timer for developing.

Kodak HC-110 dilution H. H is an unofficial dilution. It’s 1/2 strength dilution B for twice the time. 1 part developer to 63 parts water. Instructions say to use at least 6mL of developer per roll so I used 6mL developer syrup and 378mL water to get the right ratio (total developer solution = 384mL). Continuous inversions for the first minute and then 15 seconds of inversions every 3 minutes for a total of 20 minutes. Drained and got more yellow liquid and black flecks.

Kodak Indicator stop bath mixed at a strength of 16mL/L (5-6mL for 340mL). 2 inversions and then sit for 1 minute. Drained pretty clear. I never reuse the stop so I don’t use the indicator. I’ll have to reuse some just so I know what the indicator color change looks like.

If I was going to reuse the fixer, I’d add a rinse here. I wasn’t so I didn’t.

Ilford Rapid Fixer mixed 1:4 (68mL fix + 272mL water for 340mL). Same inversions (agitation) as the developer for a total of 15 minutes. Drained pretty clear.

I sometimes use the temperature control bath water for rinsing if I’m sure I didn’t get any chemicals in it. It’s already at the right temperature. I filled the tank and inverted 5 times and emptied it. Refill, invert 10X, empty, and then the same with 20X inversions. I usually stop rinsing here but I was concerned about the remjet backing so I added ~3 minutes under running water to be sure.

After the rinse, I added a few drops of Kodak Photo-Flo, refilled the tank with water, inverted a few times to make it nice and foamy, drained, squeegeed with my fingers, and hung it to dry.