Photographs taken using a WW1 era camera

[Fred van Woerkom]

chris,

sorry for the wrong spelling; I sprained my left hand while skating.

all the best,

fred

[ian turner]

One thing to be aware of when buying these old folding-type cameras is that with age, the 'belows' tend to crack and allow pinholes of light in.

I think the remedy is replacing the belows material, which may or may not be any easy matter.

Post No. 7 looks to be a 're-upholstered' model with replacement belows material.

Ian

[4thGordons]

One thing to be aware of when buying these old folding-type cameras is that with age, the 'belows' tend to crack and allow pinholes of light in.

I think the remedy is replacing the belows material, which may or may not be any easy matter.

Post No. 7 looks to be a 're-upholstered' model with replacement belows material.

Ian

Ian,

Actually I don't think it is a replacement. Kodak made several models with red bellows and I believe this is one. They appear to be quite common. I have also seen them in quite a bright blue.

Small pinholes in the leather bellows can be repaired with a dab of black (or red in that case) nail varnish. I would imagine it would be very difficult to replace and/or fabricate replacement bellows. Larger splits could be patched with black electical tape etc but while this would be functional it would not be all that "pretty"

Fred, my cameras are, (Left to Right) and Folding Brownie 3A, Kodak 1 A SeriesII and Pocket Model IIB.

Somewhere I have a vest pocket model as illustrated above also.

Chris

[J T Gray]

Post No. 7 looks to be a 're-upholstered' model with replacement belows material.

I considered that possibility myself as the bellows are so good, still light-tight after 98-odd years. However Kodak stopped making red bellows towards the end of 1911 - so George Eastman House claims, and they should know - so I think it is unlikely that anyone has replaced them, as the replacements would almost certainly be black. Later - by the 1930s - Kodak were using vinyl bellows, and they really do disintegrate at the corners.

Adrian

[Fred van Woerkom]

Chris,

Great collection!

I have a folding Kodak camera that goes back to 1937 and a Voigtländer from the 20s.

Nail varnish ! Now, why didn't I think of that.

Hope to see the results soon.

All the best,

Fred

[Fred van Woerkom]

Chris,

I can't wait to see the results.

Fred

[Fred van Woerkom]

Chris and others,

For more info on what Kodak Vest Pocket camera's of the era can do, see The Living Image, http://licm.org.uk/livingimage

All the best,

Fred

[centurion]

Here's some photos of the camera itself

With the older films, you used to be able to open the flap at the back and write on the negative, ie 'me and my mate John with a captured Jerry machine gun' with a special writing stick, then hold it up to the sunlight for a few seconds for it to work

This model was made between 1915 and 1926. I believe that it was not generaly available in the UK until after the war. This one appears to be the post war model as the earlier ones had square rather than rounded ends to the case

The quality of modern 120 film stock is in general much superior to that available in WW1 (being both faster and less grainyand I would be interested to know what exactly was the film you used

[4thGordons]

Thanks Fred - that has some interesting and information.

I have cleaned up my cameras and selected a couple for trials!

I looked around for different films and bought a selection. I had planned on taking pics today but as it is well below freezing and snowing hard I think I will wait.

Reading around ,there is a film brand known as "Efke" (I think Slovakian?) which seems relatively widely available here and which is, according to those who know, the most "traditional". I did not yet get this (the emulsions are apparently a bit fragile and production quality inconsistent (?) and as there are already lots of variables in the camera I thought I would start with some standards)

I think Rob said above he used Ilford

I bought: Ilford Delta Pro 100, Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros, Kodak BW400CN PRO (this is the film that uses standard colour processing) - we shall see.

ROB / ADRIAN - any tips and or suggestions? I have the instructions which came with the cameras so I was planning on a bit of trial and error but anything that will help me avoid basic errors would be appreciated.

[Fred van Woerkom]

Chris,

THE LIVING IMAGE site also mentions Efke . It also mentions a 127 roll film 'Jessups'.

Fred

[centurion]

In the WW1 era many photographs were produced using the contact print method (no enlarger) so that the size of the photo was the same as the negative. I have in my collection a Kodak Vest Pocket camera (not the autographic version) which was made between 1912 and 1914 - the style of the bellows suggests it is more likely to be 1914 than 1912. Given the quality of the film at the time (slow and very grainy) this would be fine for the "Nobby and Fred in front of the dug out" type of photo but one would have little hope of producing anything as big or as clear as those shown at the begining of the thread. Using modern film - possibly.

[J T Gray]

ROB / ADRIAN - any tips and or suggestions? I have the instructions which came with the cameras so I was planning on a bit of trial and error but anything that will help me avoid basic errors would be appreciated.

Chris, your manuals are probably a good start - aren't they wonderful bits of social history? They also assume a lot less knowledge of photography than most do today. I've never used Neopan, or the Fuji, but I have used the Ilford, and it's a good one to start with. The cameras were made in an era where 100-speed film would have been incredibly fast, so I'd save the 400 for a sunless day.

Check whether the shutter only works one way, or whether it's a flip-flop (ie takes one exposure when pressed down, and another when pushed up). Make sure you're happy with whichever way it goes before you put film in!

Do you have a light meter? If not, not to worry - but you may have to work a bit on scanned negs, unless you have your own darkroom. Negative film is very tolerant of a wide range either side of the correct exposure, so not having a meter isn't a disaster and besides you can probably pick an adequate one up from Ebay for a pittance. If you do, assume that the shutter speed is about 1/30th of a second unless told otherwise, and if you measure the distance from the aperture to the film plane and divide it by the diameter of the aperture you'll get your f-number. Put those into your light meter and Bob's your uncle. Try to avoid excesses of light and shade in the same view, at least until you are familiar with the results you are getting and fancy 'sperimenting. You don't need to worry to much about where the sun is, though, as on those old Kodaks the lens is buried behind the shutter so effectively you've already got a lens hood on. For the same reason (bone up on "flare"), you can actually use colour film and (apparently - I've never tried) get good results. You also need to remember that you've no yellow filter, so your skies will be almost white.

The most important thing with the slow shutters is to hold it still. If you can prop the camera against the waistband of your trousers, and still see the viewfinder, that's probably the best way. Failing that, find a bit of you that works and lets you see!

The only other things I can think of are to get into the routine of either winding on immediately you've taken a pic, or immediately before (both together is very wasteful!) to avoid double exposures as much as possible. That and modern films are more sensitive to light through the backing paper, so put a piece of insulting tape over your red window, and only lift it when you are ready to wind.

Hopefully I've not bored you to sleep, or taught you to suck eggs too much. Good luck, and do share the results with us!

Adrian

PS Just remembered - I've had good results with the Efke film, but I've also had some really dodgy rolls of 120 where the numbers have bled through the backing paper onto the film. All the 127 I've used has been fine, though, and it does look good in print.

[4thGordons]

Thanks very much Adrian - excellent information, especially the winding routine - I remember the same problem with my first camera (given to me by my granny and now I think of it, I think it took 120 film too!).

I have done quite a lot of 35mm photography and lots of digital SLR stuff and I am familiar with the basics and principles. Good to know about the film window though - an easy fix! (although I think I will use insulating tape - I don't know where to get insulting tape although it sounds like a product I would have much use for)

A couple of my cameras have additional external screw-on lenses which are marked F7.9 111mm (on a Kodak No1 Pocket) and f7.7 100mm Anastigmat. Am I correct in assuming these are the "portrait lenses" referred to in the manuals? Have you used these? I suspect it might take a while to figure out which bits of the image shown in the viewfinder prism are actually captured. Perhaps I will leave them off for the time being.

The cameras I thought I'd try first have 1/25th and 1/50th shutter settings and 4 aperture settings (one of the others has several more)

I think I could hand hold ok at 1/50th but 1/25th might be a challenge. I have a couple of cable releases and have practiced (one does indeed have a shutter that clicks both ways!) I was hoping to borrow a light meter from a friend - I have one but I do not know if it works.

Thanks again.

Chris

[J T Gray]

Sounds like you are ahead of me at this game, then!

I'm sure that those lenses are the portrait ones - I've never owned one, so never used one. However as far as I kow what they do is bring the point of focus down to about 3-4 feet from the camera, so you should just be able to use the viewfinder as usual. Maybe "waste" the last shot of a roll just to try them?

I wouldn't worry too much abut 1/25th - remember, 100 speed is lightning-fast compared to what they were designed for, so you can probably get away with just using the faster one. I suspect that your aperture selection might give you huge depth of field as well - the three options on my red-bellowed Kodak are approx F10, 20 & 30, which will give you an idea of the sort of DoF you can expect.

Don't forget it's a mirror in the viewfinder, rather than a prism, so panning will make your brain hurt!

Adrian

A couple of my cameras have additional external screw-on lenses which are marked F7.9 111mm (on a Kodak No1 Pocket) and f7.7 100mm Anastigmat. Am I correct in assuming these are the "portrait lenses" referred to in the manuals? Have you used these? I suspect it might take a while to figure out which bits of the image shown in the viewfinder prism are actually captured. Perhaps I will leave them off for the time being.

The cameras I thought I'd try first have 1/25th and 1/50th shutter settings and 4 aperture settings (one of the others has several more)

I think I could hand hold ok at 1/50th but 1/25th might be a challenge. I have a couple of cable releases and have practiced (one does indeed have a shutter that clicks both ways!) I was hoping to borrow a light meter from a friend - I have one but I do not know if it works.

Thanks again.

Chris

[Muerrisch]

Fine thread, lovely cameras, and reminds me of a great need for my study of old uniform photos, particularly of the dress and undress pre-war uniforms. Never seen anything remotely intelligible about colour rendering.

Surely shomeone can write it up for a novice?

By the way : although flouted, particularly by officers, the keeping of diaries and the taking of photographs was in fact forbidden.

[4thGordons]

Fine thread, lovely cameras, and reminds me of a great need for my study of old uniform photos, particularly of the dress and undress pre-war uniforms. Never seen anything remotely intelligible about colour rendering.

Surely shomeone can write it up for a novice?

I have been working on a one page explanation with pictures...still am unsure that I have got it right but, as I understand it, this is basically the problem:

At the time of the First World War, most photographers used orthochromatic film. This film responds to the blue/green end of the visible light spectrum – creating problems with the rendering of colours at the opposite end (red/yellow etc). Modern panchromatic films, which were available during the war but uncommon, respond to the whole visible spectrum – giving a more “realistic” rendering of colours in grey tones.

This effect is often seen on aircraft markings (roundels) and on dress tunics (scarlet often with yellow cuffs) where the colours look “off” and is also responsible for the sometimes darker skin tones in pictures of this period and the "disappearing" yellow stripe in Gordons tartan because it is rendered dark.

[J T Gray]

By the way : although flouted, particularly by officers, the keeping of diaries and the taking of photographs was in fact forbidden.

That is a very good point. I think I alluded to it - but didn't make it explicitly. No doubt it was easier to flout if you were an officer (and, on the other side, Ernst Junger refers throughout Storm of Steel to a companion who always had a camera), but I suspect that for your average enlisted man taking photos was about as practical a going out for a walk in no-man's land in daylight. Perhaps a little less physical danger, but presumably the penalty for being caught with a camera would be fairly nasty?

Adrian

[Muerrisch]

Thanks to both. An Idiots Guide would be appreciated by this idiot!

[4thGordons]

Well - I got some time today so I put a couple of rolls of the Ilford through the No1 Folding Pocket Brownie. I tried a variety of settings. It was not very bright - but it was snowy, anyway the film will be sent off for processing in the morning. Thanks for hints and tips. we shall see.

Chris

Grumpy - I am working on the a set of pics digitally to try and illustrate the effects.

Here is a comparison - 2 Gordons - the left picture (although earlier) is probably taken using PANCHROMATIC film (stripe in kilt is visible, tunic colours etc) The right is ORTHOCHROMATIC (yellow stripe is rendered dark and disappears cuffs are dark, tunic looks almost black)

Here is my attempt to reproduce this digitally:

A] colour picture - B]a colour picture converted to greyscale (but panchromatic) - and C] a colour picture filtered to block reds and yellows and rendered greyscale (orthochromatic)

A] B] C]

EDIT (5/2/2009) - got an email shipping note from film developers - something is on its way back to me...but rather ominously weight is given as 1oz so I suspect the experiments did not work and there were no negatives worth printing...I will now have an agony of waiting.....

Edited 6 February , 2009 by 4thGordons

[4thGordons]

I got my prints back today.

Good News / Bad News

Good news is the exposure is OK on most pictures

Bad news is 1) there seems to be light leakage on some (light pinholes?) and 2)almost all of the 14 pictures are out of focus. I cannot decide if this is a result of camera shake(with the shutter action) or failure to correctly focus on my part!

Also learnt that the what is captured on the negative is not necessarily printed (I know this is usually the case but the large format of these negatives makes it more of a problem)

I will continue to experiment with some of the other cameras - this was taken with a 1917 dated one- I have a couple of others dated a bit later which have a faster shutter speed so I will give these a go.

BTW my poor results indicate how good the first pictures in the thread were!

Anyway : a picture of Lincoln's tomb, and the bronze bust of Lincoln in front of it. The negatives have the top of the needle on!

As an aside (and to keep it vaguely on topic) - Foch visited Lincoln's tomb during his 1917 visit to the US.

Lincoln's Tomb - Springfield IL

Lincoln Bust - Springfield IL

[Fred van Woerkom]

Chris,

Thanks for sharing these pictures and your experiences.

Light leakage, I'm afraid, is quite common. Why not apply nail varnish to the holes? I think you suggested this method.

When you've found out whether it was the slow shutter or your camera 'shake', please tell us.

Cheers,

Fred

[4thGordons]

Hi Fred,

The trouble is - I cannot find any pinholes in the bellows! so I am not sure where the light is actually coming from. It did not seem to be a totally consistent pattern which also complicated things.

I shot another roll through a differernt camera - one the same as RobL used for the initial pictures posted in the thread and as I also have a screw on "portrait lens" for that one I thought I would see if I could use a roll to do a couple of formal portraits and then send the two off.

The roll I shot yesterday was all taken with the camera mounted on a tripod, at 1/50th of a second and with a cable release - which together I hope would eliminate "shake" - and will show if my problem is with focus or.....

I also tool a big black cloth and draped it over the camera for the whole time it had film in (leaving the prism and lens exposed!) in the hope that this would minimize the effect of any light leaks.

I will report back.

Chris

[Fred van Woerkom]

Chris,

If there is no particular pattern in the diffusion of light over the photo, it may be that the bellows as a whole has become so thin with age that light penetrates everywhere of at least in several places.

The precuations you took with the other camera (tripod, cable releaxe, 1/50th) should be enough to ensure a good result provided there is no or little light leakage.

Please post the new photos.

Cheers,

Fred

[J T Gray]

I have to say, I'm a bit surprised that these are this bad! I can account for the cropping - photo paper sizes and 6X9 film are different aspect ratios, so you will always lose a bit (though that does seem rather extreme!) -but the rest seem pretty poor.

To test Fred's theory about thin bellows, fire a flashgun inside the back of the camera while you look at the front in a darkened room - in short, if you see anything you have a problem. There's some blobs that the two pics share, which would make light leaks a possibility, but others that don't... Will be interested to see what you get from the "dark roll".

Adrian

[Muerrisch]

Grumpy - I am working on the a set of pics digitally to try and illustrate the effects.

Here is a comparison - 2 Gordons - the left picture (although earlier) is probably taken using PANCHROMATIC film (stripe in kilt is visible, tunic colours etc) The right is ORTHOCHROMATIC (yellow stripe is rendered dark and disappears cuffs are dark, tunic looks almost black)

Here is my attempt to reproduce this digitally:

A] colour picture - B]a colour picture converted to greyscale (but panchromatic) - and C] a colour picture filtered to block reds and yellows and rendered greyscale (orthochromatic)

A] B] C]

Many thanks ..... treatment of yellow is most interesting. Read, marked and inwardly digested!