Tag Archives: Kodak

Phound Photos Volume 17

This film was in the Chinon SLR I reviewed. It’s Kodak Max 400 I think, I can’t find my notes and the film is so dark I can’t read frame numbers or edge markings.

There was a lot of overlap, sometimes triple exposure, so the parts of the film that have images are kind of a jumble. Except for a couple (see below), it wasn’t worth extracting individual frames so I scanned strips – 5K-ish wide by 700-ish tall. WordPress image upload barfed on trying to do post-processing on the wide images so I’m putting links to unprocessed files. Click the link and your browser will open the JPEG in a new tab or window. In Firefox or Safari, click it and it will zoom to 100%. Then you can horizontal scroll.

1st image (~1.4MB)– The exterior shots look like the landscape around Los Alamos.
2nd image (~2MB)– This half is in better shape (multiple exposures aside). I think it may have been earlier on the roll so better protected when curious folks opened the camera back.

This is probably the best image I could salvage.

This is probably the best image I could salvage.


Old image or just old school. Dad may be military.

Old image or just old school. Dad may be military.


After WordPress couldn’t process, I punted and put the files on Google Photos. [time goes by…] After wasting an hour or so of my life, I found that Google Photos, like many things Google does, is a useless waste of time. They want complete control of how and with whom you share your own photos. I can share an album or a photo that’s not in an album but it either is controlled within Google’s viewer, which blows, or it can be downloaded. As a download transfer station to get images to friends, it does work, so it does have very limited utility. There are a couple of convoluted hacks to get links directly to files but none of them worked for me. I should have expected as much. After giving up on Google, I looked at the media library in WordPress and the original files had uploaded, it just couldn’t process thumbnails and other intermediate sizes.

Google – Don’t be evil. Hahahaha! Sucker! Getting you to think we weren’t going to be evil was the most evil part.

Phound Photos Volume 15

This roll of Kodak MAX 400 (C-41 color print film, not T-MAX) has been sitting in the refrigerator for a while. It was in the Canon AL-1 when I bought it in late December 2019. I’m trying to work my way through more found film before the chemicals go bad. I’m using the Cinestill “Color Simplified” 2-bath kit. It’s the 1st batch I’ve used so I have no idea of its staying power vs the Unicolor kit I usually use.

On to the images.

Gorgeous dog. Want to steal.

Gorgeous dog. Want to steal.


Wind chime.

Wind chime.


Frozen bird feeder.

Frozen bird feeder.


Frozen bird feeder detail. Even the perch has ice.

Frozen bird feeder detail. Even the perch has ice.


Icicles.

Icicles.


Some color correction. The film survived its journey through a thrift store to me in pretty good shape.

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 before" date

It performed well for film 37 years past its “develop before” 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.