Using Vintage Cameras

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Tue May 31, 2011 7:58 am

Changsham wrote:
mndean wrote:
Changsham wrote:I used to repair my old camera bellows with book binding leather patches. Book binding leather is thin and flexible and folds well to get into the nooks and corners. Works very well with contact adhesive. Leather and book binding merchants should stock it. And don't forget to lightly treat the bellows with boot oil once in a while to stop them drying out and cracking.

Also add a little matched colour shoe polish to clean up the outside scuffed areas. Should then look and work like new. The only reason why old camera bellows fail is because people don't treat the leather or duck and let it dry out.
I'll add a warning to your otherwise excellent repair/maintenance advice:

Sometimes the "leather" isn't leather at all and no oils should be used for treatment of it. Certain Agfa/Ansco and Kodak model camera bellows (among other manufacturers) are most notorious for having used something other than leather. The otherwise excellent Kodak Monitor cameras are enough of a gamble as regards their bellows, I won't spend what a collector will simply because it may not be usable without much work, and I use my old cameras and hate having them on a bench for repair for long periods. Treated paper embossed to look like leather has even been used in some low-cost camera bellows. I know of a seller on that auction site who will sell a folder that is fully restored (and you will pay a commensurate price), and although I haven't had dealings with him (I prefer DIY) he's highly respected for his work. I will not name him as I doubt many if any here are interested.
True, some usually simpler cameras has paper or coated (duck) cloth bellows. Good quality cameras like Zeiss Ikon etc which are still highly usable matched high quality lenses with leather bellows.

Yes! I have what's considered the cheapest of the Zeiss 120 folders, a pre-WWII Nettar, its bellows are leather, and it's very well built. Kodaks like my father's old 3A folding have a red leather bellows that's still light-tight.

Most people nowadays are either repairing, building their own bellows from patterns, or paying someone to make them. NOS factory replacements are pretty scarce. Kodak bellows still come around auction every now and then, but if you're stuck with a Balda or other smaller European manufacturer with bad bellows, rebuilding is about the only option.

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Tue May 31, 2011 1:17 pm

Something tells me I should have gotten a No. 2 with the leather bellows.

Changsham · Post by **Changsham** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:56 am

Got myself one of the new digital Fujifilm X100 cameras. Looks like a 1950's rangefinder with manual controls. But it is cutting edge high tech. Takes the most fantastic pics in colour and B&W. On Velvia setting the quality is like old fashioned Kodachrome. This is the camera I've been waiting for since the demise of film.

CoffeeDan · Post by **CoffeeDan** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:19 am

rudyfan wrote:Drat, I took 8 junk shots. Unloaded and checked the camera. Bellows is no longer light tight. Pin holes in the corners. Should I be on the prowl for replacement or how does one seal them? the camera tape?

What aperture are you using? I took pictures with an Autographic Kodak No. 2 for about seven years back in my high school and university days, and took a lot of junk shots early on. Turns out I was using too wide an aperture. With some experimentation, I found that the #3 and #4 apertures suited most of my needs, even with color film. The only time I used #1 and #2 was on overcast days. I never sealed the autograph slot, nor did I fix the minor pinholes in the bellows, but I was still able to take good pictures. My big problem was finding the right distance to keep everything in focus.

However, I used 116 film (the recommended size) in my Autographic Kodak, which I had more trouble finding as the years wore on. Do they even make that size any more?

I still have a 1932 Vest Pocket Kodak in excellent condition, in the original box, that takes 127 film. Now I'm tempted to get it out and start using that one again . . .

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:44 am

CoffeeDan wrote:
rudyfan wrote:Drat, I took 8 junk shots. Unloaded and checked the camera. Bellows is no longer light tight. Pin holes in the corners. Should I be on the prowl for replacement or how does one seal them? the camera tape?

I used 116 film (the recommended size) in my Autographic Kodak, which I had more trouble finding as the years wore on. Do they even make that size any more?

I still have a 1932 Vest Pocket Kodak in excellent condition, in the original box, that takes 127 film. Now I'm tempted to get it out and start using that one again . . .

116 (or 616?) film was discontinued in the 1970s or early '80s, I believe. 127 film will have to be gotten from a place like Freestyle or B&H, and I don't know who does processing.

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:27 pm

Sorry the pseudo-subject change, but I want to ask:

When do you think digital cameras will complete replace the chemical film ?

If we think in movies, it will take more time, since a movieshot in modern 70mm, or Imax, have a extravagant amount of image detail, and movie digital cameras are not fast enough to get and file the data.

But 35mm still cameras, in terms of image details, are similar to 16MP digital cameras.
The problem is that digital cameras have a low dinamic range compared to chemical film.

Another question, if you allow me: Who here have tried to shot in a good digital camera and use digital filters to try to emulate the behavior of specific emulsions ?

I'm curious to heard your opinion and guess about this.

Again, sorry the pseudo-subject change.

Post by **Danny Burk** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:56 pm

Please, let's keep to the subject at hand, "Vintage Cameras". Your question is speculative and can be found in, say, several thousand online photography forums.

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:31 am

Ok, sorry.

Danny Burk wrote:Please, let's keep to the subject at hand, "Vintage Cameras". Your question is speculative and can be found in, say, several thousand online photography forums.

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:45 am

CoffeeDan wrote: What aperture are you using? I took pictures with an Autographic Kodak No. 2 for about seven years back in my high school and university days, and took a lot of junk shots early on. Turns out I was using too wide an aperture. With some experimentation, I found that the #3 and #4 apertures suited most of my needs, even with color film. The only time I used #1 and #2 was on overcast days. I never sealed the autograph slot, nor did I fix the minor pinholes in the bellows, but I was still able to take good pictures. My big problem was finding the right distance to keep everything in focus.

However, I used 116 film (the recommended size) in my Autographic Kodak, which I had more trouble finding as the years wore on. Do they even make that size any more?

I still have a 1932 Vest Pocket Kodak in excellent condition, in the original box, that takes 127 film. Now I'm tempted to get it out and start using that one again . . .

My autographic recommended 120 film.

I had not fiddled at all with the aperture settings. I will be shooting more film once we get out of the gloomy weather pattern we're having. Rain, grey and not bright light.

I'm trying to figure out a tripod I can use. I screwed in the Gorillapod I use for the digital camera, screws fit. But this little autographic is much much heavier. I'm hoping to find a small, lightweight tripod for it.

LouieD · Post by **LouieD** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:53 am

Actually, I prefer to shoot when it's overcast. Not many shadows on the face that way.

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:51 am

Well, now the sun is out, who knew? Maybe I can get some shots this weekend.

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:04 pm

rudyfan wrote:
CoffeeDan wrote: What aperture are you using? I took pictures with an Autographic Kodak No. 2 for about seven years back in my high school and university days, and took a lot of junk shots early on. Turns out I was using too wide an aperture. With some experimentation, I found that the #3 and #4 apertures suited most of my needs, even with color film. The only time I used #1 and #2 was on overcast days. I never sealed the autograph slot, nor did I fix the minor pinholes in the bellows, but I was still able to take good pictures. My big problem was finding the right distance to keep everything in focus.

However, I used 116 film (the recommended size) in my Autographic Kodak, which I had more trouble finding as the years wore on. Do they even make that size any more?

I still have a 1932 Vest Pocket Kodak in excellent condition, in the original box, that takes 127 film. Now I'm tempted to get it out and start using that one again . . .
My autographic recommended 120 film.

I had not fiddled at all with the aperture settings. I will be shooting more film once we get out of the gloomy weather pattern we're having. Rain, grey and not bright light.

I'm trying to figure out a tripod I can use. I screwed in the Gorillapod I use for the digital camera, screws fit. But this little autographic is much much heavier. I'm hoping to find a small, lightweight tripod for it.

They're out there, but I've never run across one I liked enough to keep. Somehow when I shoot 120 or larger, if I carry one at all I prefer having a heavier tripod.