moominstuff

Aries Polaroid coin stage: Why not?

2009-11-02T18:10:00.028-07:00

This is one of those things I bid on and then thought, geez I hope someone outbids me! Someone else actually bid on it, but $2 short of my bid. Oh well. So here it is (deep breath): The Aries Model 195 Coin Stage/Model 4000 Coin Camera.
Okay, so sure I have a lot of coins in boxes and drawers...but I have little to no desire to take photos of them. Sure, we all know coins are cool.

But I just bid because it looked interesting. Other than being odd, there aren't many reasons to own one of these. But now I do. So now I'm sharing a little bit of my madness with you.
This "thing" had no instructions with it; just a brochure. Which helped a little bit. Not much, but a little bit.

My favorite part: lightweight and portable. Okay, it is actually much lighter than I would have expected. But at 18" tall and 12" long...not exactly a compact camera. I guess you could throw it in the back of your van...

...and head off to the coin show with it. Impress your friends with instant coin photos.
Ha...I just noticed that's the wrong brochure. Here's the right one for this camera. Very important, I know. But mine has adjustable magnification, the other doesn't. Obviously better.

Anyway, so I had to use this in my kitchen, because it isn't small, and I don't have any outlets left in my office-type area. It's more authentic, anyway, to photograph your coins in the kitchen. Your mom doesn't want it on the dining room table. So, here is the beast.

Yes, I agree. Unnecessary purchase. I sacrificed a pack of Fuji FP-100C to figure out how this thing works. It probably was meant to be used with 3000 film, but I didn't want to waste a pack of 667. This is basically how it works.
There is a light table that you put your coin on...

It is supposed to light up the coin face and provide a white background. The black slide allows you to position the coin and expose one side and then the other, so you have both sides of the coin on a Polaroid.

It is also supposed to have different magnifications, adjustable via a bunch of pegs and the bellows. I couldn't really get this part to work.

So I thought I should just jump right in and take a shot as a baseline. I set the magnification at 1:1, or actual coin size.

Okay. Too dark. Let's open the aperture and increase exposure time.

Okay. Too light. And out of focus. Which is odd for a fixed-focus camera.
Sooo...to check that focus. I have a focusing screen for my 600SE. Let's see if we can fix this.

It seems to only be in focus at maximum magnification. I have no idea how to make it stay in focus for the different magnifications. The lens doesn't focus; it's all the bellows' work. Maybe with 3000 film? Not sure what difference that would make. But, whatever, I got it into focus. Looking at the brochure, maybe the base is adjustable...too much trouble to figure that out, though. I prefer to view my coins close up. Let's take a couple more shots.
Oh, I forgot to mention...this thing is awkward as hell to use. You have to reach in the narrow area where the lens is to adjust speed and aperture, and cock and fire the shutter.

And when you take the shot, you have to press on the light button and hold it down. In doing so, the entire unit moves, so you have to brace it with your hand while pushing, and then reach around and fire the shutter. Kinky.
Moving on. I try a few more shots, guessing at the exposure settings.

Ha. Okay...so maybe let's try a smaller coin. And a brighter coin. Uno mas...

Success! Wow! I'm going to take Polaroids of all of my coins now! Not. This is probably my very last coin shot. Ever. But...what else can I do with this thing? It's basically a slight macro camera. Anything flat will work. Let's try a couple shots of old stereoscope photos.

"Red Rock from Below, Grand Canon of the Yellowstone, Yellowstone Park. 1903."

"Doing the Chores."

Kind of cool, I guess. How about a couple of photo scraps of mine from around 1988?

Yeah, I like that. But that's the end of this pack.
Okay, so it's cool for what it is...a strange piece of photographic equipment. It has a few issues. Use is limited by the small stage, about the size of an actual Polaroid. The bulbs are very yellow, so everything photographs brown with color film. And they are super hot. When I was working on focusing, the coin was practically glowing red. What are my future plans for the coin beast? Not sure. I might take it apart. I can't imagine using it more than a couple times as it is. I'd like to separate the camera from the base, see what I can do with it. How awesome would it be to carry this around on the street? Might be a neat portrait camera, as the focus can be a foot or more away from the lens.

Someday.

I have couple things I'm working on for future posts. The Kowa Super 66 is sweet. And I've got the Fuji film in a Kodak instant camera thing figured out. Until then...

Polaroid copycat: Keystone 60 Second Everflash!

2009-10-22T19:32:00.013-07:00

Okay, quicky review here for fun. I bought this thing for $4 on a whim. The Keystone camera was made by Berkey, which seem to be an electronics company that made calculators and cameras (film and movie). Not sure who was on the design team, but Keystone cameras are some of the ugliest available. Some are so ugly, they aren't even "cool" ugly...they are just ugly! The biggest 126 camera ever is a Keystone.

So...Polaroids. They must have had a license with Polaroid to produce what are basically ugly copycats of Polaroid products. Check out this horrible 600 camera. The camera I bought is known as the 60 Second Everflash (also sold as the Rapid-Shot with no flash and red trim instead of blue).

Now, sure it's not attractive...and it's an obvious mockery of your typical hard case Polaroid - your Super Shooters and Colorpacks. But! It's actually quite an interesting bit of plastic. It's kind of a combination of various ideas from different Polaroid cameras. Above, note the button to open the back instead of the metal/plastic bar most Polaroids use to keep the back shut. And I love the pleather back. Maybe it provides padding for your cheek and nose.
Okay, the shutter system. A Polaroid hard case shutter is just one single button that does it all. The Keystone has a two-step shutter system like the folding Polaroids.

Step 1 is to cock the shutter. Step 2 is focus (there is a 2 above the lens). Step 3 is press the blue button! Wheee!
Next up is the obvious flash unit on top of the camera, like many of the 600 Polaroids. This is actually a great idea. The name is referring to the flash being there forever, but not sure what the 60 seconds means...60 seconds to charge? And an Everflash is a great idea....except it doesn't work. Not at all. No powering up, the test button does nothing, no flash. Not ever. The bulb must be burned out...not sure if this is something that can be fixed?
Then we have the electronic timer on the side. Only a few Polaroid cameras feature an electronic timer.

Another great idea! But...it doesn't work. The red light stays for awhile after you pull the film, but nothing happens. I assume it works much the same as the electronic timer on some of the folders. You set it and it activates when you pull the film from the camera.
And speaking of batteries, this camera takes three AA. I assume to provide ample power for that flash and timer. That don't work. But they control exposure, as well, so they have to be there.

The battery compartment is on the underside. The Keystone has two exposure settings: Color and B&W.

Color means ISO 80 and B&W means ISO 3000. Also present is the lighten/darken knob, and it focuses the same as every hard case Polaroid.
One thing that kind of bugged me when using it was the placement of the viewfinder. Not sure why, but I kept going for the left side, but the finder is on the right! So...how does it work? Was it worth $4? Even with all the broken bits? Yep. Check out some shots from the camera (with Type 669, expired 12-2003, except for a single Fuji FP-100C shot)...

Very similar to the hard case Polaroids! But somehow different...maybe because it has a glass lens? But the depth of field is fantastic, and the blur is super silky. It has some of the same exposure issues in lower light that my Colorpack III has, where it can't decide whether to expose light or dark.

And the parallax is off and aims more towards the ground like most cheap cameras, so it's easy to lose what you were aiming for at the top...

But, overall a fairly competent (and ambitious) camera!

I'll be back soon enough with some more interesting stuff I have in the works. Adios!

Hot on the heels...the Banner Instax!

2009-09-20T11:33:00.019-07:00

Didn't take long for me to start messing around again. This project was much easier, as the Banner is all plastic and similar to the Diana+.
The Banner is a really cheap Diana clone. You think the Diana is cheap? Well, the Banner is designed like someone cast a bad mold of the Diana and tried to make all the pieces fit...and they do. Poorly. It has a super blurry lens and the back barely fits on the camera. In other words, it rocks.

Here are a couple images taken with 120 film in the Banner.

So, I wanted to take a Banner and stick an Instax back on it, like I did with the Fujipet. I figured the lens on the Banner was interesting enough that it might make some sweet shots. The Fujipet took me an afternoon to build. I think I spend maybe an hour and a half on this.
First up was figuring out what's different between the Diana+ and Banner. They are both based on the Diana camera, but the Diana+ has some very obvious differences, like the longer barrel.
The Banner back doesn't fit on the Diana+...

...and the Diana+ back doesn't fit on the Banner, partly because the tripod mount is in the way.

Which means the Instax back doesn't fit on the Banner.

So the goal is to make it fit, only modifying the Banner and not the Instax back.
First to come off are the spool holders. You would need to remove these on the Diana+, as well.

Then I needed to enlarge the exposure area, so I get a full frame on the Instax film. I used a saw and an Exacto knife.

I also had an issue with the lock on the bottom not quite lining up, so I removed a small piece that was blocking it. With luck, I could slide it together and be able to use the lock. I also cut off a small area on one side of the camera that was too thick to fit past the Instax back parts.

Those were the only modifications! I also needed to put the diopter in the camera to fix the focal length. I removed the lens from the mount and used white glue to secure it (this worked with the Fujipet, so why make things difficult).

Now to put it all together!

The fit was a bit tight, but I was able to slide them together and use the lock. The only issue I had can be seen along the bottom on the camera.

The banner back is about 1/8th of an inch shorter than the Diana+ Instax back. No real way to fix this, so I figured if it leaked, I would just have to tape it up. Let's take this baby outside for a couple test shots!

It works! But there is definitely some leakage along the bottom edge. I just threw on a piece of black electrical tape and then took it out with me while walking the dog. The shutter on the Banner is pretty slow, so it performed better in the shade. May make a small ND filter for it at some point. Anyway, a few more test shots!

Nice! I like the output better than the Fujipet Instax. Has the blur along the edges, a bit more toy camera-ish. Will definitely take this camera out with me on my next road trip.
No idea what I'm going to do next. I have a 110 that I want to convert to pack film, but I kind of want to use my Type 47 in it before I take it apart.
So, until whenever, keep shooting!

The Fujipet Instax Conversion: Dreams and Nightmares

2009-09-15T12:00:00.019-07:00

I had thought about doing this for awhile, since I saw the Lomography Diana+ Instax back. I have a Diana+ that I rarely use, but that just seemed *boring*. The Fujipet is classy and I figured, hey, why not? Encouraged by Skorj who attached an Instax back to a Polaroid J33 (who was encourage by my J33 conversion), I moved ahead with the project. And, seriously, what a pain my my butt. In retrospect, the final product should have ben much easier to put together, but in the beginning I had big ideas and little planning. So this is much messier than it looks. I may do this again at some point with another back (FYI...much cheaper to buy from Amazon with free shipping). As it stands, the current version has some issues with leaks.
Ooo-kay. So we start with a fresh Fujipet camera and a fresh Instax back. And, yes, I am about to shred that poor little Fujipet into bits. Not for the faint of heart!

My original plan was to attach the Instax to the Fujipet back. The Diana+ is a different shape so it doesn't readily fit onto the Fujipet.

There were some problems with this right off the bat. The Fujipet back is taller than the Diana+ back. The cameras are pretty similar in size, but because of the way the screw on the bottom of the Fujipet works, it needs extra space to store the parts. Because of this, the rounded part on the Instax doesn't have a place to go so it doesn't line up properly. If the Fujipet was plastic it wouldn't be an issue...just carve it up. But it's all metal, which is difficult to manipulate with the tools I have.

But I wanted to make this work. I had the bright idea of cutting away part of the plastic on the Instax...but the gears that eject the film are right there (which I discovered after cutting the plastic). And there was the issue of cutting a hole in the metal back so the film would expose. This was basically impossible to do with my tools. I also had to remove some parts from the Fujipet, like the spool holders. Anyway, I'll just let some pictures tell my tale of whoa trying to fix the Fujipet back.

That last shot reminds me of the scene from Alien when the creature bursts out of Hurt's stomach.

Okay, so in the end that was a complete waste of time. It still didn't fit together properly and there was no way to attach the two parts. I still like the idea and if I do this again, I'll have someone (that has tools and skills) cut the opening the same size as on the Diana+ back, and shave out an area for the rounded part on the Instax. Then I can just screw them together using the screw holes on the Instax. But that's for another day.
So, yeah, that was a waste of time and gave me a couple blisters. But I didn't really start making a mess of things until I started tearing apart the Instax back. This was seriously unnecessary, but I didn't figure that out until I was done screwing it all up. My idea was just to use the Diana+ backing on the Fujipet. Not sure why I just didn't try it before I cut it up. But I had the bright idea to combine the Diana+ back with the sides of the Fujipet back. I did have to cut off the bottom of the Fujipet to correct the height difference. That part wasn't a mistake. Anyway, some more shots. Not as many, though, because I was too busy being annoyed to take more photos.

Yeah, that doesn't work. So what I did was glue and tape the Instax back together again. I would just attach it directly to the Fujipet.

You can see it doesn't quite fit, but it's doable. And I have zero shots of all of this. I was just too busy working on it to bother, I guess. But it just took some Superglue and black tape to get it attached. The final product!

Looks pretty sweet! The Diana+ back has little feet that pop out so the camera can stand on its own. I broke these and had to glue them back in place. One more thing to do, as well. There is a diopter that adjusts the focal length (and ISO mysteriously, even though it is clear plastic).

I just removed it from the plastic mount and glued it inside the Fujipet. I figured this would be the most likely issue. The focal length on the Fujipet and Diana+ is different.
Okay, no test shots, right? Yeah. Well, I took it to California with me, figured, hey, it will work or it won't. This is what I got.

Them's some pretty mighty leaks. Okay, so I thought I checked for leaks, but obviously missed something major. Those feet I broke and glued back together? When I got home I found those to be the culprits. Black tape and no more leaks, I hoped. Looks to be in focus under the leaks, though!
Let's do a test shot after the fix! Boring shot out back.

Yipes! Well, that worked a million times better than expected. To be honest, I was correct in my thinking that the camera would look cooler than the output. The Fujipet lens isn't particular crazy, and there isn't really any warp in the middle. So what I get is a pretty darn good photo! Focus and exposure is perfect!
Okay, so I've only used the camera once since then, and only took a couple shots before it started leaking again.

There is a bit of warp, but my guess is it's from the diopter, as the Fujipet doesn't really have much warp in the middle of the lens. Also, aperture is very important. Two shots, first at 16 (all the way open), second at 22 (smallest setting).

So, it's a pretty nifty camera when it works. It's a mess because I made it a mess. Looking back, I should have just taken the Instax back as is, cut off the bottom of the Fujipet, and attached the two. I like the idea of integrating the Fujipet back, but we'll see how that works if I do this again. I also need to figure out how to best put it to use. It takes shots pretty much like an Instax camera. The film is kind of snapshoty. Not sure yet how to make it work for me.
I have another Instax back. Before I go tearing apart another Fujipet, I'm going to try it with something else...a Banner camera. The Banner is the crappiest Diana clone you can get. Super bad lens, super cheap build. Maybe the perfect match for the Instax! Something a bit wonkier but still manageable. I'm sure I'll be blogging about it someday.
Also looking to get a Print Gocco set. More stuff to play with! I'm also working on BSN classes, so busy times ahead. And I need a nap. Until whenever, seeya!

Polaroid sans Auto: The Manual Cameras

2009-08-01T12:36:00.041-07:00

Been awhile since I've posted...but I did post like three in two weeks. I've been out shooting quite a bit, but haven't really done anything new with my cameras. A few projects in line, but nothing finished yet. I've been wanting to talk about the manual pack film (peel-apart) Polaroid cameras, so this little dead spot seems like a good time to do so. Skorj has an excellent review of the 195 here, and the 600SE here, but I still have to put my two cents in, of course (aside from my little 180/195 comparison here). I thought this would be useful for those trying to decide which manual camera to buy, a question I see frequently on forums.
The fully manual pack film cameras are the 180, 185, 185 (2000 version), 190, 195, 195 SE, NPC 195, 600SE, Fuji Fotorama FP-1, and the Konica Instant Press. I'm not including every other manual camera that can use a Polaroid back (including the Mamiya Press that some say is more versatile than the 600SE). I don't have enough experience with all of that. I'll mostly talk about the cameras I own: the 180, 190, 195 and 600SE (and maybe the 110A conversion), with a few asides on those that I don't own.
What defines a manual Polaroid camera? Well, they are fully manual, meaning no exposure help, auto or assisted, and no auto-focus (which none of the pack film cameras has, while most integral cameras do). You set your aperture and shutter speed and you focus through the rangefinder. Simple as that. Every other Polaroid pack film camera aside from those listed above has some kind of auto-exposure (aside from the Swingers, which have an assisted exposure...you set it using the simple YES metering). This includes all the folders and hardcases and, well, all of them. I like to have both manual and auto cameras with me, but the manuals are certainly more versatile, and are all of a higher build quality. I'll also say right up front that most of the "technical" info on these cameras, such as date and numbers produced, comes directly from The Land List. After the general camera info, I'll talk a bit about advantages and disadvantages...just a comparison and maybe why you might choose one over another.

Polaroid Land Camera Model 180
This is the first fully manual pack film camera, produced from 1965-1969. Estimated production numbers are 51,000-80,000, with a retail price of $189.95 (theoretically almost $1300 in today's currency). It features a 114mm 4-element glass Tominon lens. Aperture is from 4.5 to a miniscule 90, with the speeds being Bulb, 1, 2, 4, 8 , 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, and 500. Focal range is 3.5 feet to infinity. Has M and X flash sync, as well as V, which is the self-timer mode (approximately five seconds). Usable film types include all Type 100s (including the Fuji equivalents), as well as all Type 80 films.

While this camera is fully manual, it does feature a nice EV scale on the side of the lens mount.

What this allows you to do is use a meter with an EV, or the way I use it is as a starting point for my exposures. The scale is 12-21, and the manual explains it better than I could.

The Zeiss viewfinder is a single window, containing both the rangefinder and viewfinder. It works how you would expect...a little box in the middle in which you line up your object until it is in focus.

A couple shots taken with the Polaroid 180...100 Sepia, Fuji FP-3000B and ID-UV.

Polaroid 195 Land Camera
This camera was produced from 1974-1976. Estimated production numbers are unknown. Land List states more than 10,000, but I see just as many 195s for sale as 180s, so the number produced was probably similar. Retail price of $199.95, which is actually cheaper than the 180, given that it is a newer (and better) camera. It features a 114mm 4-element glass Tominon lens. Aperture is from 3.8 to 64, with the speeds being Bulb, 1, 2, 4, 8 , 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, and 500. Focal range is 3.5 feet to infinity. Has M and X flash sync, as well as V, which is the self-timer mode (approximately five seconds). Usable film types include all Type 100s (including the Fuji equivalents), as well as all Type 80 films.
I've had to make various repairs to my 195, so it's not quite minty.

The case started to fall apart awhile ago, and I had it taped together. Then I lost it in Japan. The red "racing stripes" are my fix for leaky bellows. I tried liquid tape, which just crumbled after a few months. I then tried to patch the individual leaks with black electric tape, but there were too many and the tape wouldn't hold. This was my final fix. It was 9:30 at night in the town of Kochi in Japan, and the only place open was a department store and all they had was red tape for 100 yen. So I patched it up in my hotel room...and it works great! No more leaks.

You can see the 195 also has a manual timer on the back, which is lacking from the 180. The original was broken. I bought another cheap camera with a timer to replace it...it was broken as well. So I gave up and attached an old timer in its place. I never use the timer anyway, but I wanted something to fill the gap.
The viewfinder is a split finder, which presumably was cheaper than the Zeiss. You focus in one window, and then frame your image in another.

Some people replace the finder with a Zeiss, which can be found on some of the cheaper folding cameras. It doesn't bother me, personally, so I left it as is.
Another difference is the lack of an EV scale on the lens.

Though the red numbers are kind of used as the base exposure settings. 60 with 8 or 11, then you twist both to maintain the same exposure. 45 and 64 is in blue, for 3000 speed probably.
There is also a 195 SE. Skorj's 195 does have an EV scale on it, so I presume that his is probably the SE edition, as everything else on the camera is the same.
Some shots from the 195, two with ID-UV, one with 100 Chocolate.

Polaroid 190 Land Camera
This camera was produced from 1974-1977 for non-US markets. Estimated production numbers are unknown, but probably over 8,000. These are actually fairly rare. I assume this camera was made for European and Asian markets (my instructions are in Japanese). It features the same 114mm 4-element glass Tominon lens as the 195. Aperture is from 3.8 to 64, with the shutter speeds being Bulb, 1, 2, 4, 8 , 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, and 500. Focal range is 1.2 meters to infinity. Has M and X flash sync, as well as V, which is the self-timer mode (approximately five seconds). Usable film types include all Type 100s (including the Fuji equivalents), as well as all Type 80 films.

This camera is basically the same as the 195. The biggest difference is the inclusion of an electronic timer instead of the manual timer.

It takes batteries, of course (if you open the battery compartment on the 180 and 195, it is empty). It's kind of an odd duck. You set the time, and when you pull your film it turns on, making a funny whining sound when the time is up. I don't use it. One downside to the electronic timer is it adds a level of tightness to the pack, as it is pressure sensitive (turns on the timer). This is fine for Polaroid packs...but Fuji packs are a very tight fit. You have to pull the tab very slowly so it doesn't rip. On cheaper cameras with electronic timers, some remove the timer, or bend the clips that press down on the pack. So far it hasn't really been an issue for me, so I've left it alone.
Another big difference is the use of the single-window Zeiss finder that is used on the 180.
Other than that, the only other difference is the meter scale on the focus bar replacing the feet of the US 195 model. I assume there aren't any 190 cameras with an EV scale, but there are so few of them about that it's hard to follow up on.
And a few shots from the 190, with Type 690, ID-UV and Type 108.

Also in this line of cameras is the 185, which was produced in very limited numbers and sports a different lens than the 180 and 190/195, and also has an exposure meter built into the shutter body.

I've only seen a couple photos of this camera, but it looks like maybe the exposure meter is basically a needle that tells you if you have enough light for your shot. There is one person I know of that has one, and he paid around $1000 for it.
There is also the 185 (2000) camera...

...which was later rebranded as an NPC 195.

I haven't used either of these, so I can't say much about them. Except I'm not sure why they chose to use existing camera numbers instead of calling them something else. They certainly don't look anything like the originals! I'm sure they are decent cameras, though.
Okay, so out of 180, 190 and 195, which is best? Well, they are all pretty similar. As for as photo quality, they are all exactly the same. I would probably recommend the 195 over the 180. The 3.8-64 aperture is going to be much more useful than the 4.5-90 apertures. The metal surrounding the lens of the 180 is softer as well and tends to get bent, making it difficult to screw on the filters.

These filters work with the 180, 190 and 195.
If you don't like the split finder on the 195, you can always swap it out with the Zeiss finder. Just be aware that sometimes the split image in the Zeiss viewfinder can "drift", making it difficult to focus, which doesn't seem to be a problem with the dual window finder.
You can also buy close-up and portrait kits for these three cameras, but they are different for the 180/190 and the 195, as the viewfinder is different (unless you swap).
The 190 is kind of cool just because it is less common than the other two, but other than the finder and timer, a 195 is the same thing. The 190/195 is also newer than the 180, so they tend to be in better condition overall. At least I see more beat up 180s for sale than 195s.
So is there any reason to have the 180? Some believe the lens is sharper than the 195, but I haven't found this to be the case. The f90 aperture is probably for use with 3000 speed film, but I've never had to go that small. Maybe why it's not present on the 195. If you are planning on owning more than one manual, getting one of each is an option.
There is another manual option, though...

Polaroid 600/600SE
The 600/600SE is basically a Mamiya Universal Press body designed specifically for Polaroid backs. You can't, in fact, use the same back as the Mamiya Universal Press because the mount is different. The difference between the 600 and 600SE is that the SE allows you to use three different lenses, while the 600 lens is fixed and not removable. And, also, this camera has absolutely nothing to do with 600 integral film. These only use Type 100 films (and the Fuji equivalents).

The 600SE is, of course, the better option of the two with the ability to swap the lens out. The main lens is a 127mm, with an additional 150mm "portrait" lens and a 75mm wide lens also available. My 127mm lens is broken, so I just use the 75mm, which is the reason I wanted it anyway. The lenses have apertures from 5.6 to 45, with a focus of 3.5 feet to infinity.

When you change lenses, there is a switch on the camera that changes the viewfinder to match the 127 and 150mm lenses. If you are using the 75mm lens, there is a special viewfinder that hooks onto the top. It also sports a parallax correction...you set it depending on the distance and it fixes the 'up/down' problem. I find this viewfinder a bit difficult to use, though. The edges don't seem particularly accurate, and it's virtually impossible to shoot a level horizon through the thing. So I usually frame through this finder, and then use the regular viewfinder if I need an accurate line in the photo.

Another advantage to the 600/600SE is the removable back with darkslide.

This allows you to use multiple film types if you have multiple backs. You have to use 600/600SE backs, though. That little split "key" on each end isn't split on regular Polaroid backs, so they don't fit on the 600SE and vice versa.
You can also get various accessories, like macro spacers.

Now some will say that a Mamiya Universal Press is a better buy than the 600SE. I bought the 600SE because I got a good deal on it, and it required less thinking and research on my part. Camera body and three lenses. Easy enough. But the Mamiya Press cameras are typically cheaper than the 600SE, and there are more options for lenses. So it is another way to go.
So which is better, the folding manuals or the 600SE? Why choose one over the other? Well, the biggest turnoff for me with the 600SE is the size and weight. It is large and very heavy...not compact by any description of the word. So ease of use and comfort is definitely a factor. The obvious advantage to the 600SE is the interchangeable lens set....though if you were out in the field, carrying all three plus the camera, and then unscrewing the shutter cable and swapping them out, etc., is a bit of a hassle. You are more likely to choose one lens at a time. I only use the 75mm because I already have a "regular" lens with my folders. There seems to be a lack of filters for the 600SE, as well, and I like to use my ND filter with my 190/195 so I can open up to 3.8 in full daylight (also noting that the 600SE cameras are only 5.6). I get a lot of overexposure with the 600SE here in the land of endless sunshine. But the 75mm is an excellent lens and is super-sharp, so it's nice to have. The 600SE tends to be more expensive than the folders, as well, and with all three lenses expect to spend more than $1000.
Some shots with the 600SE and the 75mm lens, using ID-UV.

One other manual option that we have is to convert a roll film camera. I did this with a 110A.

There are a couple advantages to going this route. One is the cool factor. It just looks cool. That's it. Another is price. Well...if you do it yourself. If you buy one, you can pay anywhere from $250-$1000, depending on build quality and who made it. If you do it yourself...I spent $45 on the camera and $10 on the back. So time is the biggest cost.
A couple shots from the converted 110A. Mine is a bit leaky.

As for practical advantages over the cameras above, there really aren't any. The lens is nice, but no better than the 195s. It's smaller than the 600SE, but bigger and more awkward than the folders. So it really comes down to personal choice, and the head turn factor. Though the 600SE is beast enough to turn heads...and any Polaroid camera garners quite a few stares.
ALSO (always an also), you can get the Konica Instant Press or Fuji Fotorama FP-1. I've checked out Artyken's Fuji, but I can't really vouch for either of them. They are typically very expensive when they show up in an auction...so it's up to you. The output I've seen from both is nice enough.

So...in the end. My recommendation? One of each...haha. Well, it works for me. If you had to buy just one, I would say get the 195. Good overall camera, better than the 180, easier to use and cheaper than the 600SE. Takes all pack film formats (Polaroid and Fuji) with no issues. Speaking of which, you can use Type 80s in the 180/190/195 (if you can find some), but not in the 600SE. You just have to aim towards the left side of the viewfinder, as it doesn't adjust for the smaller film size. Here are a few parting shots of Type 88 in the 190.

And Type 87 in the 195.

So whatever you choose, enjoy! I'm off to California in a week, camping at Yosemite.
Seeya.

Polaroid peripheral madness!

2009-06-17T20:15:00.039-07:00

Instead of working on the proper blog post I'm planning, I'm doing this fun filler episode instead. I buy lots of Polaroid cameras (duh). Well, when you buy a Polaroid camera, you rarely get just a camera. You also get an assortment of sometimes useless, sometimes useful, usually interesting extras. So here are about 20 million photos of some of the junk I've gotten with my Polaroid cameras...at least the stuff I haven't tossed (yet). Oh, and none of this is for sale!
First of all, flashes. Useless to me, as I rarely use a flash, and all of these are just too much work for me. Don't ask me which goes with what camera.
Model J-5 (uses M3 bulbs)

Model 268 (uses M3 bulbs)

BC Flash Model 281 w/diffuser (uses Press 25 bulbs)

Wink Light Flasher 256

Wink-Light Model 250

Focused Flash Model 490 (uses flash cubes)

Bounce Flash Bracket Model 292

Model 259 for the Swinger Sentinal (takes AG1 bulbs)

And, of course, flashbulbs...

The AG-1 bulbs are most useful, as they work in the Big Swinger 3000. And the flash bars, of course, for the SX-70. Flash bulbs are a little funny because there are a couple different mounts, so you have to find the camera they fit on.
I also get lots of batteries, which I usually throw away since they are typically decomposing inside the cameras.

I have a bunch of cold clips....

Spools from roll film cameras, both Type 40 and Type 30.

Light meters...

A cable release for folding pack film cameras, which is very useful.

Some kind of development thermometer. It has ASA and developing time (and no temperature), but I don't really understand it.

Lots of filters, some which are very useful, others which aren't so much. Still cool to have, though.
For the 180, 190 and 195...lens hood, orange filter and UV filter. And then a 5-stop ND filter, as well.

The equivalent set for the 110, 110A and 110B roll film cameras.

And a set for roll film cameras with the lens size of the 80, 95A, 150, etc. Includes yellow, orange and polarizing filters.

This is a 4-S ND filter for the same cameras, for use with 3000-speed film.

Filters for many of the pack film bellows (folding) cameras...orange and UV.

I've talked about these lens adapters before.

Along with these copy stands that I don't have the diopters to use with.

Lots of print mounts (to combat the curliness of color film).

Lots of cases that I don't use. I've thrown/given away many others.

And, of course, camera boxes...

And what kind of junk do we find inside of those boxes? Registration cards...

Junk mail for enlargements and such...

These cards are hooked onto the camera handles of hard case Polas.

And how about manuals? I have plenty of manuals. Don't ask me to scan any of these (I've had a few requests). There are plenty of resources on the Web (including this blog!) that show you how your Polaroid camera works. Scanning and e-mailing 30 pages of instructions isn't on my agenda!

And that's about it...at least the stuff that isn't buried somewhere. I also have counters and a few other odds and ends.
Wait! What? You want one more story? Okay, how about those little instruction sheets that come in the film boxes? Tons of those, too. And then I'm done and straight to bed for you!

Lights out!

J33...the loneliest conversion in the world!

2009-06-08T12:58:00.019-07:00

Moving on from the J66, I decided I wanted to convert the previously mentioned J33, a smaller version of the J66 designed to use Type 37 (and 32) film. Type 30 films are smaller than Type 40s (which have an image size similar to 100), but the same size as Type 20s (used by the Swinger family). I haven't held Type 20 or Type 30 in my hands, so I'm not sure how the two rolls differ. So the J33 uses film that has been discontinued forever, basically. There were quite a bit fewer J33s produced than other roll film camera, only about 280,000 over three years according to Land List. But there are still plenty of them available. So what am I planning on doing with the J33 again? Oh yeah, converting it to pack film.
But...didn't I say the film size is smaller than 100 pack film? Yep. So the camera is smaller, and the resulting image is smaller. So, is this possible? That's what I wanted to find out!
Okay, so we start with the J33, unscathed.

Certainly a pretty camera. Many of the steps are exactly the same, and this camera was actually a bit easier to convert. First remove those pesky doors.

Here you see the difference in size between the camera and a 100 film pack back. The idea is to make that big thing work on that small camera.

Then that pesky spool holder. Note that there are no screws, only rivets. So just a bit of brute force needed. You want to keep those two silver rivets in place, as they secure the front clasp.

This has the same plate that the film slides across and also holds the bellows in place. I wanted to be able to leave this in place, but it has two raised edges, and the back needed to be as flush as possible because of the way the two pieces fit together. So I ended up ripping it off, and regluing the bellows in place.

The spool holder on the right side can stay, as it will add needed support for the pack back. Here, check out the image size difference between the camera and back, and how the back will sit on the camera.

No need to cut the top, as the back sets against it perfectly. But we do have all that extra open space on the back to take care of. I used a couple 600 reject cards and cut them into a mask. Black tape to secure everything.

And, quite honestly, that's about it! All that's left is to fix the back onto the camera and clean up the end. I used some foam tape to level out some on the indented areas, and then just epoxied the back on! I did cut the end piece as well, which was the most painful part of the entire process. Not sure how this metal differs from the other roll film camera, but it was stupid hard metal. The saw wouldn't cut through it! It just kind of rubbed its way through. I didn't even have much dust left at the end. Was a real pain in the butt. So we have the finished camera already! Much easier process.

Notice the small piece of leatherette from another camera on the front bottom of the back to pretty it up. Nifty looking! But, the big question...how does it work?
The J33 was designed to use Type 37, which is 3000 speed film, with an adapter (that I don't have) for color film. So I used Fuji FP-3000B for my test shots. I only had a couple left in a pack, so not many examples, but enough to see what the camera does. First shot, you can see the difference in image size.

Kind of like a Hassie shot! But not. Or looking at a dog through an airplane window. Okay, so I expected the image size to be smaller, but I didn't expect the bottom to be cut off. This is because the back doesn't sit quite high enough on the camera to allow for the additional white border. So if I did this conversion again (or if I decide to pop this apart and rework it), I would cut out about 1/4 of and inch from the plastic camera cap to bring the back up a bit, allowing for the full image to present itself on the film.
Moving on, cropping it actually produced a kind of cool image size!

Nice! I actually quite like this! Again, be nice if the entire image fit on the film, but still pretty cool! And the same shots, goop side, along with another test shot.

The end! Again, I actually like this camera quite a bit! I like the interesting shape of the final image, and the camera is easy to hold and use...quite a bit smaller than the Type 40 roll cameras!
This will probably be my last conversion for awhile. Can't really think of any other cameras that I'm super eager to try. I've already done the odd choices, the rest would probably be more of "less interesting". We shall see, though. Really would like to get the full image on this camera, though. And get the color adapter. Will have some fun using this one! Should get some looks, at least.
Seeya!

**UPDATE**
Okay, so I didn't much care for the image being cut off, so I took the conversion apart and reworked it. SA?ELfJC E GF/Lhes?gK RDEPzbnjZGHE (sorry, that's how I feel like I'm typing right now...I keep backspacing every other letter to fix something). Anyway, so I know I would have to take the top off and keep it off, as cutting it would be very difficult. There is glass and metal in the finder...would have just been a pain. So I took it off, readjusted the back and set off.

I used a J66 finder since I couldn't put the J33 finder back on. Looks okay, problem though. I fixed the up and down, but not the left and right. It's still cutting the image on the side and I can't push the back any more to one side. So, I had to do what I didn't want to...cut the end off the camera. Mostly because -- hardest metal to hack through ever! Seriously, not sure why these are different than the other roll film cameras, but the saw would not cut through the long way. It just kind of rubbed through from friction. Huge pain in my butt. Did it though, and unfortunately had to cut more off than really desired just because it would have been impossible to saw on the curved part of the body.
Redid my mask for the back and used a piece of Fuji film pack for bracing so the pack back would have some more support.

And the final product! Surely a bit uglier, but 100% more functional.

And the results! I like! With Type 667.

And you can crop, of course...

Some leaks to contend with, though I kind of like them. But chances are they will get worse before I got through another pack. Now all I need is the color adapter set and I will be...set!

Quick on the heels...the Polaroid J66 Conversion.

2009-05-31T12:39:00.029-07:00

Yeah, I may be the only person who practices converting to pack film using a nice camera like the 110A, and then moves on to converting crappy cameras. But how many 110A cameras do I need? One. So on I move.
My next conversion was a Polaroid J66. Widely regarded as not a very good camera, the J66 was a fixed-focus, auto-exposure camera for Type 47 (3000-speed black and white) roll film. Some of my favorite cameras are crappy, so I figured, hey...why not? It's a pretty cool looking camera, I think.

I love the industrial vibe...very vintage. Very much a product of its time. A very popular camera, as well -- about one million were produced between 1961 and 1963. Original price: $89.95. I paid $6. It has some neat features, such as the auto exposure. That big square on the front is the light meter, It has a little dial on top that lets you know if there is enough light. The dark/light setting is on the front lens, and directly controls the aperture. I said it was fixed focus, and it mostly is except for the ability to pull the bellows out a notch for shots closer than six feet.
There is a built-in flash of sorts. It pops out of the side and takes an AG or AG1 bulb. The flash uses a single AA battery, which oddly enough you push in from the front of the camera, alongside the bellows. It just kind of sits in there held in place by the contacts.

Also interesting is that the camera was produced before color film was available from Polaroid, but that it was planned and the camera would be able to use the film.

I'm waiting for the color adapter (a plate that fits over the front of the camera and has a filter for the meter), so I can't vouch for its capabilities in the realm of color.
And this just because of my ongoing infatuation with chicks holding Polaroid cameras. It's a sizable beast, indeed.

And also just because, here is the J33, J66's baby bro. Built for Type 30, which is a much smaller roll film that didn't seem to really take off. But I think the camera is awesome looking, so I have one. Too small to convert to pack film, but some have done a conversion to 120 film.

Okay, so back to the J66 conversion. Most of it is exactly the same as the 110A conversion, so I'll just have mostly pictures with bits of text, unless something is different. Overall, the second time around is much easier. I had most of this done in about five hours.
First, remove the pins and get the backs off.

Take the top off. Held in place by two inside screws and the two screws that hold the viewfinder in place.

Remove the spool holder. This was easier as it was just held in with two screws and was all plastic. And pop out that spring bar thing. The bolts shoot to the ceiling when you do.

You don't need to save any of this because there isn't a spring to pop the door open underneath like with the 110A. I failed to show pictures of this next step on my 110A conversion. Remove the photo plate/bellows clips to get the pack as close to the original film plane as possible. Just pry it up and rip it off.

In retrospect, I'm not sure you need to remove the cutter bar. You will be sawing off the end of the camera anyway. Maybe just peel back the skin and leave the rest. But I didn't consider this until I had removed it.

Saw the end off. This time I started on the long side and then cut each end, so my cut would be straight.

Do the same with the door. Remove the extra bits with a screwdriver, pliers and brute force. Then saw the end off. I was more careful with measuring this time. I had the same idea as last time, to use original parts in the new design.

I cut the plastic top on this camera, as it was long and skinny and didn't look right hanging over.

The bellows weren't fixed like on the 110A, so I had to reattach. I took the seal, cut it in bits, glued it back on, then used epoxy in the empty spots so it would stick to the camera body. Then I painted the clear epoxy parts black to stop the light leaking through.

I had the same issue with the back, not being able to open it while attached to the camera, so I just shaved off a small bit on the corners. I could have gotten away with shaving even less than this, but it's hard to do without slicing your finger (which I did) or screwing up the finish around the area you are shaving. The plastic is very brittle and doesn't peel off...it kind of flakes and snaps off in little bits.

After all that, it's just a matter of putting it back together, gluing the pack back in place, fixing the skins, etc.

The black pack doesn't go quite as well with the color scheme on the J66, but overall still decent looking. So how does it shoot? Is it as crappy as everyone thinks? A couple random shots I took while out running errands, and then a few final words about the conversion. These are with Fuji FP-3000B.

Not bad at all. Not particular exciting, but not awful. It actually does a pretty good job of giving the FP-3000B a 667-like texture. And leaks? Yeah, the camera has leaks. On the 110A I used a Fuji back. This time I used a Polaroid back, which didn't fit quite as snug, so there are some gaps along the sides. I taped as much as I could, but I'll probably have to reglue (the back is also a little loose on one side) and seal up some of the edges.
So was it worth it? Sure, why not? Maybe it's not a fantastic camera. It looks really cool, but it's a bit middle of the road, not having the cool plastic effects of the Big Swingers, while also not being nearly as nice and sharp as the 110A. Still, I'm glad I did it, and I'm looking forward to the color kit so I can test out that function (after I fix the leaks).
I may convert the Polaroid 850 next, just because it's pretty darn cool looking. And each conversion I do gets easier, and new realizations will be had with each, as well. And it keeps me entertained.

Polaroid 110A covertomation. Convertomizing. Okay, just conversion.

2009-05-26T05:21:00.042-07:00

Nothing like made-up high-tech words. Sooooo...I've thought about grappling with this beast for awhile. I'm certainly not the first person to do this. There seem to be a fair amount of 110/110A/110B conversions to pack film out there. They do, in fact, sell for quite a bit. But I wouldn't buy something I could do for myself! Wait, what am I talking about? For all of you that have no idea what I'm talking about! Let's start with the camera.
Polaroid roll film cameras are different that pack film cameras. I've talked quite a bit about pack film in the past (what I refer to as peel-apart, though roll film is also peel-apart), and had one post about my 150, a low-end roll film camera (amazing that something that nice looking is low end). Roll film is the precursor to pack film, so the cameras are, of course, older. Roll film has also not been produced since about 1990, and finding working film rolls is getting tougher and tougher. So what to do with these cameras? Well...why not convert them to use pack film?
There are various roll film camera models, and actually there are three roll film sizes. Type 40 is the largest and closest in size to Type 100, so these are the cameras that get converted. And there are mostly lower-end cameras with fixed shutter speeds, and a couple nice high-end cameras comparable to the 180/195 series. These are the cameras that are most sought after for conversion...the 110, 110A, 110B and 120. You can read more about the differences in these on the Land List here. I chose to use a 110A because I got a good deal on eBay. 110Bs are the most popular just because they have a couple minor improvements over the 110A. Some people convert the 'lesser' models as well. Here is my 150 next to my 110A. See the obvious difference in the lens quality.

Okay, so the 110A (the camera with the fancier lens above). I'm not going to talk a bunch about the roll film camera and how it works...you can check out my 150 article for that. Here are a couple pages from the manual, though. Love the illustrations, and a bit about the lens, as that's the main difference between the 150 and 110A.

And the camera itself. You can see...she is very dirty (raowr!).

So...the conversion. It took me a couple days, I'd say maybe 12 hours total, but that included a few mishaps and re-dos. There are a couple resources out there to help with conversions. Land List has a page with some decent step-by-steps. Option8 has a site that has a few tips, but the is site mostly a mess and difficult to follow. I couldn't even find the link to the conversion except through Google. I don't recommend it as a resource unless you are desperate for some pictures of the final product. Skorj has a nice work-up as well (and this is what got me going on my own conversion, finally), and this was more useful for some of the step-by-step. I like to see things sequentially and logically. So these sites helped a bit as I felt the task to be a bit daunting before I started. Truth be told, it was much easier than expected. The few mishaps were just me not paying attention. The process is actually pretty straightforward and just requires a little bit of grunt work and a bit of determination and imagination.
Besides the camera itself, the other important ingredient is a pack film back. These can be found as separate entities and are used on the 600SE, ID cameras and scientific cameras (like my oscilloscope camera). The Polaroid version is usually known as a CB-33 back. There are older metal versions and newer plastic versions. I would use a plastic model for this conversion just to keep the weight down, as the 110A is very heavy.

Some people also cut the packs from various folding cameras (like the Automatic 100). I chose to use my Fuji back, as it fit the best, being a bit narrower than the Polaroid back. So, back to taking this camera apart. First, need to remove those pins in the hinges to get the back door off. The pin for the main door hinge was actually one of the tougher tasks...I just had a lot of trouble getting it out. But if you screw it up, there are a couple other hinge pins in the camera that are easier to remove and can be used in the end product.

Basically just brute force to get it out, with a hammer and a pointy thing. This inside pin was in a tight area, so it was easier just to pull and bend.

There are three doors in a roll film camera, but you only need to worry about the main door and inside door at this point. Off, you have an open camera.

Next is to take the plastic top off. This camera uses a dual viewfinder system like the 195. The 110B has a single viewfinder like the 180 Zeiss finder. This was one of the useful things I got from Option8's site. There are four screws. One is on the flash mount on top, one is accessible on the front right, and the other two are on the inside back. They are all different-sized screws, so it's easy to figure out which one goes where when putting the camera back together.

There is also a wire for the flash. I just clipped it because I don't care about the flash. I can always add this functionality later if I want.
Next up is removing the bar on the end of the camera with the door lock. There are three screws inside and two underneath the skin. Peeling this skin off is a bit of a chore. It's glued on super nutty and the desire is to peel it off without damaging it for later use (though I found a perfect removal method for parts not attached to important things, which I'll mention when I get to that point). This end part isn't all that important, though, as it will just be discarded...but you want to save what you can.

You want to remove as much of the extra stuff as possible to reduce the weight of the camera. The rollers weigh quite a bit. Take out the guts from the large open area. This helps with weight reduction, plus this junk impedes the opening of your pack back once in place. This requires removing three screws and then a lot of brute force to get the roll holders out. Mine are metal, but it looks like Skorj's model was maybe black plastic? But it took a bit of leverage with a screwdriver to get them out. Save the plastic part with the screws, as it will need to be broken down into a smaller piece and reattached, because the springy pin the pops the front door open is located under this.

I covered the lens with tape to protect it. Some recommend taking it out, but I didn't really see the point and just want to keep it from getting dirty or scratched.
Next up is the manual labor step...cutting the end of the camera off so you can fit the bulky end of the pack back onto the camera. It has to be removed to you can fit it on and open the clasp, as well. Judging by other mods, I made my angle not nearly as severe. Didn't really see the need. I kind of went with the same angle as the clasp on the pack back so I could keep it as flush as possible. Some pictures of the procedure and then a few tips. I used a hack saw with a metal cutting blade for this step. Do yourself a favor and use a new blade. It's only a couple bucks for a pack of five blades.

I started by cutting the ends and then cutting the width from the front. The toughest part about this procedure is the beginning when you are trying to get the teeth to catch in the metal in the correct place. At first it just glides over it like ice. I wasn't about to start at one end and saw all the way down...no way to keep a straight line and end up in the same place on the bottom. The angle was off on each end almost from the very beginning. In retrospect, after cutting a later part, I found that it's actually better to do your long cut first (though equally difficult to get the first cut), then chop the ends off. Then you are starting with straight line and not trying to cut to make your ends meet that you had already cut.
Before you start cutting, you want to make sure you are cutting in the appropriate place, of course. The pack opening needs to line up with the opening in the camera. I put a dead pack of film in the back to make sure my placement was proper. The opening is larger than the film pack opening.
Simple tip...inside the 110A there is a metal plate. You need to remove this to keep your pack as close to the original film plane as possible. What you have left, as seen above, is a series of rivets. Other online references tell you to clip these rivets. If you are using a plastic back, this actually isn't necessary. I didn't believe it at first, but three of these rivets on top and three on bottom line up exactly with the screw holes in the pack film camera. And there is an indentation for the light seal as well, so the other rivets fit right into this space. So...if you line up your holes with the rivets, you have perfect placement for your pack. So place, measure, mark and cut. When you are done, the pack fits just right.

Notice I peeled back the skins. This is so you can fold them over your cut ends when done. I just used superglue and some clips until dry.

The pack itself fit perfectly into the space provided by the camera. but I had one problem...the back was wider in the hinge area than the lower body, so when I opened the pack back, it wouldn't fit into the area...it just pulled the pack out of the camera. Skorj's solution was to clip the metal in this area. I wanted to do as little damage to the camera body as possible, so I just shaved down the pack back with an Exacto and sandpaper. Then I colored it with black marker. Not all that pretty, but mostly invisible when the camera is put together.

As mentioned before, replace the plastic part that hold down the spring for the pop-open front. You have to cut it or break it down, as it gets in the way of the pack back if you don't.

All that's left is to cut the pack end to cover the gaping hole, and to decorate the camera somehow. I wanted my camera to look like a Polaroid camera. I didn't want it to look like a circus sideshow with purple snake skin. I like the vintage look of the camera itself and want to carry that theme forward. This was my original idea, which evolved into something else in the end. But here you can see what I did. Used some original parts, double-sided tape and superglue.

That skin? Super tip! State secret! If the part isn't attached to anything important, an easy way to remove it is to pour boiling water on it. While the metal is hot (careful kids with hot things), the skins peels right off in seconds. Requires almost no effort and saves the skin's integrity.
So the next step was to cut the end part. this was my first idiotic mishap. Cutting it is no different than cutting the camera body, and is actually a bit easier as it is thinner. Well, I measured this thing at least four times, drew my guide lines and cut.

Put it back together...and...W T F! I mean, seriously.

I'm off by a full five millimeters! If I scowled any harder, my face would have folded in on itself. Nice bonehead move. So...what to do? Well, fortunately, the 150 is the only camera that is built exactly like the 110A, and you can get a 150 for $7. Perfect purchase for spare parts. So I got another and re-cut the back door. DUMB!
Intermission! This is my desk when I'm working on stuff like this. Yeah, I lose stuff all the time...on my desk.

So, anyway, all I really have left to do is to secure everything. The metal plate you remove from inside the camera had little clips to hold the bellows in place. But this metal was super weak and seemed to be just a bit of insurance, and the bellows seem to be glued in place fairly well. I added a string of white glue along the edges just for extra.

All that is left at this point is to secure the pack back to the camera. I used epoxy gel for this task. A shot of the initial process, then realization.
You have to cover the bit of extra space in the pack where it hangs over the edge of the camera. I used a piece of Fuji film pack and black tape. Just cut it so it lines up with the photo edge of a pack.

And I thought I would be smart and take the back apart and epoxy the base onto the camera and then put it together after.

Okay...dumb move number two. Once the base in place, you can't get the pack back together because of the metal edge on the camera body. Not enough room to work the hinge around the pins. Sigh...
So, I had to pry the back off the camera. Epoxy sets fast. Fortunately, nothing snapped, and I was able to pop it off and put it back together and re-glue.
That's it! All that's left at this point is aesthetics. While I didn't think the skin job I did on the back was bad, it just didn't seem right to me. It matched, but still didn't look vintage. I stared at the camera for awhile and thought about things for awhile and finally worked up a final look using the original back door of the 110A. I had to take the skin off so I could remove the film plate and rivets, and sand a couple of them down. Then I re-glued the skin back on. I didn't really like the open hinges, so I flipped another hinge from the camera and glued the old rivets in place and attached it to the pack back with double-sided foam tape. Amazing how everything is pretty much the same size! In the final pictures, you can see my flippy part on the end isn't cut quite straight because the rivets look a bit off. Or maybe the hinge thing is slightly crooked. Oh well, I did what I could. If I had an industrial saw, I could have done a straighter cut, but I think it still looks good. My other design choice that seems to differ from other conversions was the decision to not cut the plastic top at the same angle as the metal body. Didn't really see the point as I think it looks nice intact. It doesn't look ungainly and seems to flow with the end of the pack back end. I just had to shave off about a millimeter of plastic that was in the way of the back clasp. Everything looks nice, and the back looks like it belongs.
Some camera conversion porn!

Looks pretty sweet! But how does she work? Light leaks are always a worry when doing projects like this...fitting foreign things to other things. But my back fit very nicely on the camera. After gluing everything together, I shined a flashlight all around the inside and outside in a dark room. I couldn't find a single point of light shining through anywhere. This morning, I threw in a pack of Type 690 and took a few test shots around my place. Nothing exciting, of course, but the results are swimmingly positive! And it seems to have an amazing depth of field and pinpoint focusing that I don't even see in my 180 and 195! Will have to compare at some point, and try some different film types, of course. 690 is a soft film. There are couple niggles with it, like the dual focusing window. I'm cool with that, but you have to make sure you focus dead center on the framing window or the shot won't be in focus. And the parallax is way off, but I'm assuming this was an issue with the original camera? It's hard to tell with expired Type 40. And the viewfinder shows more than what you get on the film, as well. I may have to take off the top at some point and make sure things line up inside like they are supposed to. Only other thing to do is to make the end piece secure when closed so it doesn't flop open. I figure a simple piece of felt or soft leather will do, just enough so it wedges tight when you close it (you have to be able to open it to get the pack back door open).

Handles beautifully, and is much lighter than the original camera. One of the turn-offs to using roll film is lugging the 40-pound camera around. Much sweeter now and comparable in weight to the 195, if just a smidge heavier.
As I already have other nice Polaroid cameras, this project was more a case of want than need. But I really enjoyed the project and plan on a few more conversions, probably with some different cameras. It really wasn't all that difficult and just requires a bit of patience and creativity. Want one for yourself? Make it, don't buy it! And use it! I don't like treating my cameras like showpieces. I like to use them and set them down in the dust while I peel my film. Cameras love to be used and abused. That's what it's all about. Wow, super long post today!

This is my I can't believe I don't know how to use a ruler scowl.

The Polaroid Super Swinger Shooter?

2009-05-13T13:46:00.034-07:00

Not sure what to call the newest creation. There is already a Big Swinger, and a Super Swinger, and a Super Colour Swinger. So maybe I just take out the "u" for my own version, the Super Color Swinger. Big Shooter? Super Big Color Shooter?
What the hell am I talking about? Well, for a while I've wanted to run color film through the Big Swinger 3000. Problem is, the shutter speed is fixed at about 1/200, which is too fast for color film, and the aperture only opens so wide. I tried it once, and there was an image, but it was very dark.
Fast forward, yesterday I'm messing around with a Big Swinger 3000 (I have a few) and looking at the lens and thought, hey, why not just put this lens on a regular pack film camera? Then I would have the exposure controls along with the crazy Swinger lens. So I did just that, converting my Super Shooter, and will show all of you my steps, as always.
The first task was to get the lens out of the Big Swinger 3000.

The Swinger has a single plastic lens, and it is held in place by the black ring on the front of the camera. This was a little bit of a pain to get off, and unfortunately I bunged up the front before I figured I could just tap it off from the back, after removing a couple screws to get the shutter off. Though the shutter mechanism was very much intertwined with the front and I doubt I could get it back together properly after the stuff was disconnected. The ring had plastic tabs that were melted over the slots to keep it in place. Easy enough to pop out with a hammer and screwdriver, though. After that, everything just falls apart.

The fancy silver background of the Big Swinger is just paper. The plastic cover makes it look cool. The lens is a very simple piece of plastic, and it actually looks a lot like a Holga lens (with a different focal length, of course). So the next task is to get the lens out of my Super Shooter. This was a bit more work.
First up is removing the silver focusing ring, which is held in place by two tiny tabs. It's easy to remove, but not easy to remove without bending the heck out of (which I did a little bit).

Next up is the clip-on ring that connects the silver ring to the actual focus ring (and prevents the ring from unscrewing completely).

And the last part just unscrews. Note: all that red dust that looks toxic (and probably is) is from the case the camera was stored in when I got it. It had a red "velvet" lining that had rotted to dust and managed to find it's way into every part of the camera.

At this point, I think, oh...it's a twin lens. I decide to put the Swinger lens on top, though I know what the results will be, since the single lens won't be able to focus through the second lens. But...just in case. The Swinger lens was smaller, so I used a bit of double-sided tape to hold it in place, then just screwed the ring in place.

And the results were predictable (using Fuji FP-100C).

This was actually my second shot. On the first shot, I hadn't realized I had the rollers out of the camera. A nice WTF!? moment.
So I take it apart again. The next step is to remove that second lens. This was the toughest part of the whole shebang. It was basically molded into place inside of a hard plastic ring. SO I just pounded the heck out of it until it broke free...then I had two plastic rings to cut out, which was painfully annoying. I didn't want to mess with the screw threads, so i had to slowly cut them out with an exacto. You can see my not-so-pretty results. But this part will be hidden anyway. Also, when I got the second lens off, what do I find? A THIRD lens. What the? Now you know why the hardcase pack film cameras have such fantastic depth of field. So...okay I'll do the same thing, even though I know what the results will be. It took two pieces of double-sided tape to hold the lens in place.

I know exactly how this is going to turn out...

Okay, so I have to get that third lens out. This lens is inside, so now I have to remove the camera front and pull everything apart. This has the potential to be a pain, but I got lucky. Some pack film cameras have bolts, some have screws. This had screws...three. And they unscrewed very easily. Nice. I've done all this before when switching pack film fronts (my very first Square Shooter 2, in fact, on which I put the Colorpack II front so I could use the 75/3000 switch).

Four screws later, the shutter mechanism comes off.

And in case you were wondering what's inside a pack film camera, here it is:

So I pop out the third lens and put it back together. Note: when putting the shutter back together, there is a small switch in the upper right that you need to press downward on while replacing...this goes above part of the shutter button. If you don't press down, it will be below the tab and not work properly. Here is the camera without any lenses, let alone three.

Put it all back together (just one piece of double-sided tape this time, with the focusing ring in place). Oh yeah, and even though there is a focusing ring, this thing is fixed focus, just like the original Big Swinger.

Okay, so let's take it out back for a test shot!

Success! Boring, but a success! Another shot, of the self.

Obviously within the focus distance. But I get an image and the exposure works! Fantastic. But...suddenly the camera shutter started acting wonky. It was doing the same thing my Colorpack III was doing Japan. In bright light, the shutter won't fire, but it will in low light. Here, I'm messing around trying to get the thing to work.

The only thing I can think is that I just pounded on the camera too much and knocked the thing out of whack. Probably the equivalent of continuously dropping the camera on the ground. So what to do? Well, all hardcase pack film cameras are basically made up of the same parts, 80 and 100 cameras. I still have the original Square Shooter 2 front that I pulled off my first modified camera...so I just replaced the malfunctioning guts in the Super Shooter front (full circle!). Everything is exactly the same, and I retain the ability to use the 75/100 switch on the Super Shooter. Test the shutter and exposure before putting film in, works beautifully. Let's try this thing out for real! Within a 50-foot radius of my home, of course (until I get a chance to go out to shoot again). Check this out...

Now that's what I'm talking about! Check out that lovely focus and blur along the edges! It seems to have a sweet spot, in the center 2/3 of the lens, about 5 feet from the subject matter. This is what I wanted...that great Big Swinger warped effect with something besides 3000-speed film. This is pretty much what I've been looking for in all of my Polaroid/toy camera combos. Soft edges, sharp in the middle, full coverage on the film, no blown out areas, etc. The camera does what it is supposed to do and the lens does what it is supposed to do...perfect!
A few more shots using ID-UV, expired 2007. Not a lot of exciting stuff to shoot directly around my pad, but I can see the potential. The yellow truck (belongs to a retired firefighter) is the most interesting thing within 50 feet of my front door, so I always take test shots of it.

So the ideal is to have something in the foreground, and something distant to take advantage of the warp and blur (like the hydrant shot and the yucca/parking lot shot). And if it is all close up, then something with texture to show the effects (unlike the side shot of the truck above, which has nothing to really differentiate the middle from the edges), like in this shot of some bushes.

But not too busy!

Nice thing is, I can use 664 for black and white, and I can still use 667 or FP-3000B because of the switch. So it really is a Super Big Swinger!

So that's it! I just need to secure the lens in place a bit better so it doesn't fall out in the field, and I'm ready to head out and shoot at some point! Fun stuff.

Happy Birthday, Edwin Land!

2009-05-07T16:11:00.004-07:00

Born May 7, 1909, Edwin Land is (would be) 100 years old today! Thanks, Edwin, for you know what.

The Polaroid Big Zip

2009-05-04T13:55:00.030-07:00

So many projects, so little time. So, awhile ago I thought I talked about the Big Swinger 3000. Looking back, I guess I'm wrong. Or maybe it's part of another post. ANYWAY, so the Big Swinger 3000 was released in the late 1960s as a budget camera that only uses 3000-speed film, as the name implies. There is an earlier version called the Swinger Model 20 (sold from 1965 to 1970), which takes Type 20 roll film only. Also produced was the Swinger Sentinel (for Type 20) that shares the same body color as the Big Swinger. The Swinger 20s are the most useless Polaroid cameras, as Type 20 hasn't been made since 1970. Don't ever pay more than $5 for one of these, as I see tons of them on eBay selling for $20-$50. It isn't good for anything except taking apart (and I am, in fact, taking mine apart as I write this).

Often confused for its brother, the Big Swinger 3000 is the pack film version of the series, and it was only produced for three years (1968-1970) according to Land List. The stylings are similar, with its fixed-focus as well as its exposure system, which relies on a single shutter speed with a variable aperture. You squeeze the red knob (ouch!) and twist, looking through the viewfinder until you see the word YES in the checkered pattern. Simple and brilliant.

Using only (at the time) 3000-speed Type 107, the Big Swinger 3000 was a one-trick pony. A one-trick pony that takes amazing photos. This has become one of my favorite cameras. But, didn't I say it takes Type 107, which was discontinued in 1999 or so? Well, Type 667 is the successor, and Fuji FP-3000B works as well (which also happens to be Fuji's cheapest instant pack film). Check out a couple shots with Type 107...

And with Type 667...

And with Fuji FP-3000B...

The camera has this fantastic low-grade lens that vignettes and warps along the edges. I love this cheap chunk o' plastic so much I dragged it all the way to Japan with me.
In 1974, Polaroid released Type 87, a square-format, 3000-speed film, the equivalent of Type 107. Along with this, it created the Zip.

The cheapest Polaroid camera ever at $13.95, the Zip is on its way to being as useless as the Swinger Model 20. It only uses Type 87 pack film, which is increasingly difficult to find. Even I only have three packs left. I was offered some not long ago, but had trouble justifying $25 a pack.
The Zip works exactly as the other Swinger models, with the same exposure method. A couple shots from the camera...

Type 87 is still my favorite film, and if I had known it would disappear so quickly, I would have bought tons more when it was still $8 a pack.
So, moving on... on a discussion on filmwasters.com, someone asked about the Zip and getting film for it, and skorj mentioned cutting off the back and attaching a 100 pack film back to it so you could use Fuji FP-3000B in it. Well, I was pretty keen on that idea. Looking at the camera for a couple minutes, though, I couldn't really see hacking the back off of the Zip without messing up the exposure system. Plus I didn't think the body of the Zip would be wide enough to allow for full coverage on Type 100s. Comparing the Zip with the Big Swinger, they seemed pretty similar, so I started by removing the fronts off both cameras. Super easy job, only three screws to remove. Easiest Polaroids I've ever disassembled.

After pulling them apart, I found that the two fronts were identical on the inside! Screw placement is exactly the same.

The only differences I found were that one screw was shorter on the Zip, and the flashbulb release was slightly longer on the Zip, preventing it from fitting properly on the Big Swinger body.

And while I have the backs off, you can see how the exposure system is a simple aperture. There is a prism on the inside front of the body that reflects the light onto the YES exposure system (which requires two AA batteries), which you see in the lower part of the viewfinder.

So it was simply a matter of sanding down the flashbulb release and screwing the Zip onto the Big Swinger body, and voila! Or as an old ex-gf once put it...wala!!

Easy as that, no cutting required. A Zip front on a 100 body, maintaining the functionality of the exposure system. So how does it shoot? I've only taken a couple shots so far to test it out...

So it's pretty similar but I do note some differences. The vignette is a bit more prominent in the corners (maybe) and it warps differently than the Big Swinger lens. The Swinger lens tends to stretch things out towards the bottom, while the Zip lens almost has more of a fish-eye effect, possibly with more blur along the edges. Also, the exposure system behaves differently. In full sunlight, the Zip tells you to set the exposure much lighter than the Swinger does. Which may explain why I had so much trouble with the Zip in low light. The Swinger is more forgiving in low light, while the Zip would massively underexpose in low light. But then the Zip has better latitude in bright light. The Zip is a newer camera, so there must be some minor improvements to the system, and maybe a faster lens? It all looks the same from the outside to me, so no idea. Will definitely take this camera out and use it many more times. Love the effect and mood!
So, while I was talking to you, I took apart the Swinger Model 20 and made an interesting discovery (yes, I'm a multitasker). Take a look...

While the camera bodies are completely different, the fronts are exactly the same! Screw placement is identical...even the flashbulb switches are the same height. So, of course, I'm going to have to buy another Big Swinger and put the Swinger Model 20 on the front! More on that when I get to it. Will maybe do a quick comparison of the three versions to see if they really are any different.

EDIT: While messing about after writing this, I've found that while they are almost the same, the body attachment is different. But it looks like I can switch out that back plate by just sanding down a single protruding screw hole on the Big Swinger plate. More later.

And on another note, this week is 'Roid Week. Ha ah, sorry, couldn't resist...it's just such a foul name. But it is 'Roid Week 2009 on flickr. So if you are on flickr and you shoot Polaroids and you upload them to flickr, join in the fun of posting your Polaroid photos in the group. I don't think anything happens other than the pleasure of shooting Polaroids and showing them off, but that's enough for me.
Until next time. I have a couple things happening (including trying to convert a crappy 600 integral camera to pack film), and will get to that stuff eventually...along with whatever catches my fancy, as well. Seeya!

Project SLR 680 SE...part one?

2009-04-16T09:31:00.027-07:00

Okay, so I bought this thing a couple months ago on eBay for a decent price. Flash works great, autofocus doesn't (and it drains pack batteries while the camera is sleeping). So, hey, I can still use the manual focus. But I have two SX-70s...what's the point? Except to be able to use 600 film in a native SLR, it's mostly just a bigger, more awkward SX-70. Instead of reselling the thing on eBay for next to nothing as a broken camera, I've decided to pull it apart and see what's what, if I can maybe fix this thing.
I searched the Web and found next to nothing about repairing this camera. There are a few attempts at SX-70 Sonar repair, but nothing about the 680. I have serious doubts I'll be able to make this thing work, as my knowledge of electronics is close to nil, but at least it's fun to take things apart and find out what makes them tick.
First step was taking the covering off the front. I've done this with the SX-70, but the 680 has an extra big sonar thing, and the two parts seem to be connected somehow. I initially just tried prying it apart.

It would almost come off, but it seemed to be stuck pretty fast on the non-flash side. I tried popping off the lens casing, which is pretty simple on the SX-70. Almost as simple here, but still caught under the sonar casing.

After messing about for 10 minutes or so, I popped off the Polaroid logo on the front of the sonar casing. A screw...duh.

The screw was a funny little square deal, but a regular flathead worked fine. Once the screw was out, everything just fell off like butter (because we know butter just falls off of things, right?).
The inside of the SLR 680 SE...

The sonar is just sitting there and can be pulled loose with little effort.You can see the flash and power supply for the flash. The shutter button works by completing the circuit. Funny thing is, as soon as I pulled it apart, the camera focus seemed to work fine. I've read that the SX-70 Sonar can get stuck on infinity. Here is a video of the camera in action. You can almost hear my own circuits clicking as I pause and work out what I'm doing.

It works! But, then it suddenly didn't work. And I have no...idea...why. Another video of me screwing around...because I was using a screw to fire the shutter. Ha. It just keeps going click click. click. click. Then it takes a shot. I can see the gears attempting to turn, but nothing happens. And when I try to manually turn the focus knob, it fights with me and pulls it back to infinite focus again.

So that's as far as I've gotten. Will mess about some more, maybe see if I can access the mechanisms behind the shutter button. Not sure if the issue is with the focus elements, or with the sonar itself. Nothing looks corroded, just dusty. I assume there is some kind of minor short somewhere that causes the pack to drain while the camera isn't being used. A lot of it is just circuit board and wires, so probably not a lot I can do with all of that. Hell, if all else fails, maybe I'll just remove the sonar body and use the camera as a manual 600 SLR. Maybe not. Any ideas, leave comments! This electronic stuff is a bit beyond my skill level. But only one way to learn, and that's by doing!

I had planned on getting something accomplished today, but got sidetracked by camera stuff. Now I can't remember what I needed to get done! Oh well, it probably wasn't fun anyway.

EDIT: Okay, as I mess with this, I guess I'll just add on here. So I figured a couple things out. One, I unhooked a spring behind the focus knob by mistake, which took a surgical procedure with two pins and a hemostat to reconnect. That was loads of fun. It's the little silver spring above the wheel. I also discovered a couple other things. Check out the picture below...

The shutter button is made up of three "pins" that I have labeled. The one labeled "fires shutter" is probably more accurately the final circuit for powering the shutter, as it cannot fire the shutter on its own. The lower left controls the exposure. When you connect it and the power pin, you can see the aperture opening and closing (two metal slides behind the lens). This is the clicking sound you hear in the second video. Now the last pin, upper left, is the sonar. When you connect it with the power, you can actually hear the sonar firing. So I assume that this should also control the focusing mechanism, bringing the lens in and out from the camera. In this exciting video, you can sort of hear the sonar clicking.

Okay, so the sonar is reacting...but it's not communicating with the lens, or the lens isn't responding. Or the sonar isn't reading properly...but even if it's not, it should still at least focus incorrectly and not do nothing at all. Which is what it was doing originally. And it did work all of a sudden when I first took the camera apart, for no apparent reason.
Maybe the problem lies somewhere with the front? In this video, you can see the auto-focus fighting with me to set back into place when I try to move it.

When I depress the manual switch, I can freely move the dial, but if I let go, it has to be forced to move. It only reacts, though, when I reset the focus to infinity. I can hear it click back into place. Now since I don't have a working 680, I have nothing to compare it to, but I assume that it is supposed to automatically take over regardless of lens position when you set it to automatic. But it only takes over when reset at infinity. You can also hear it disengage when you set the camera to manual and turn the focus knob.
Referring back to the photo posted earlier, flipped for proper orientation...

The red coils are the power supply for the aperture. I may be calling all these things by non-technical, i.e., wrong, names, but you get my drift. They are probably capacitors or something, but what do I know. The round thing to the left of the sonar (below the flash battery) is the power supply for the sonar. It's what the auto/manual switch is attached to, and I assume you are just breaking a connection when you set it on manual. The sonar board connects to the power supply via the red and black wires. So I have I think four possible problem areas. One, the sonar itself, though that is basically comprised of a metal plate. Second, something on the circuit board for the sonar. Next, the power supply...though the fact that I can hear the sonar responding and it wants to take control of the focusing means that it probably works. Last, something between the power supply and the lens itself, in the mess of gears. Something may not be connecting or communicating properly.
Them's a lotta words. My guess is it's the circuit board. And maybe specifically the connecting wires from the sonar to the board. Under the solder, there is a brown stuff, like glue gone bad. Though this may be from the heat of soldering on plastic. But there is obviously a connection or you wouldn't hear the clicking. I'm not sure what the sonar actually is...it's deceptively simple. It just looks like a copper plate with a screen over it wired to the circuit board. Which is probably exactly what it is. I'll have to read up on the SX-70 Sonar, see if I can find out more about it.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. I'll probably continue this in another post when (or if) I figure something out, rather that adding to this post infinitely. Until then...

Edit #2
Once more for today, then I'm done. I figured out that the white cylinder is not a power source or battery, it's the motor that controls the gears for the focusing. Another video.

So to summarize, here is the front and what I know is what:

The motor is connected to the lens by a series of gears set behind the electronics. When I disengage the motor by pressing down on that switch, and twist the manual focus, manual works until I let up on that disengage switch. Then to re-engage the auto, I press down on the manual/auto switch, then let go, reconnecting the circuit and auto resets the lens by itself.

So the issue isn't between the motor and the lens. And when it was temporarily working, the flash was angling up and down properly (and the flash works as well). And because I can hear the sonar clicking when I complete that circuit, the problem must be within the line between the sonar and motor. Someone suggested a short, which makes sense. The next step will be following the various circuits to see if I can figure out what connects to what. I'll probably have to take the board off to see the back side. I may just put the thing back together once in case it magically starts working...but I doubt that will happen.
Haha, most people are probably looking at this thinking, okay guy, show us some more pretty pictures. Enough of this rambling "you don't know what you're talking about" electronic stuff!

He hath returned...

2009-04-12T04:55:00.010-07:00

Wow, some kinda unintentional Easter reference there. Super short post, just haven't said anything for awhile so thought I'd say "hi". Spent a couple weeks in Japan, been home for a couple, but haven't taken the time to do much but scan and develop. I shot buttloads of Polaroids and film:

Yeah that's like 400 Polaroids. Not all are worth scanning, of course, but still lots of work. And I haven't shot anything since I came back, so I'm starting to go through withdrawals. Just to fill the emptiness in my heart, here are a few shots from the trip...first a couple Polaroids.

I took my 195, Colorpack III and Big Swinger 3000 with me. For the first time ever, I dropped a Polaroid camera...I dropped my Colorpack III, twice. Screwed up the meter and after wasting a pack, I just threw it away. Bummer, it was my friend. I have a new one coming from eBay.
I used my Fuji Natura Classica a lot. It was my "film digital" as I didn't bother to bring a digital camera with me. Used it for both artsy and touristy shots.

I also brought my Rolleiflex, but I'll talk about that later. I want to do a bit of a review...a little bit of good and a bit of bad. I'll also break down my trip into a couple travelogues of some of the interesting places I visited. Lots of great haikyo!
Anyway, a few parting shots of me in the Land of the Rising Sun shot by friends.
Artsyken, me and Skorj...

Shot by eichii scart during a photographers brunch (I still haven't scanned the shot I was taking in this shot)...

And a few more from Shikoku...

It was really cold.
More later. Enjoy your egg hunting or whatever it is you do!

E-2 slide film home processing!!!

2009-02-12T07:59:00.019-07:00

I don't think I've ever done posts two days in a row, but yesterday was a rather productive day for photography related projects! Not for much else, as I sat around and did nothing most of the day...but it was a great day for photography! Not only did I finally fix my 195, but I successfully developed color slide film from 1968!
I bought a bunch of expired film for cheap on eBay last year...

I grabbed a roll of the Ektachrome last week and shot it through my Great Wall, not realizing until I got home that it isn't E-6 slide film, which is the current chemistry for color reversal film. Older formats include E-2, E-3 and E-4. This was labeled as E-2 on the paper roll, but the tab and instructions state that it can be developed as E-2 or E-4. Here is a copy of the instruction sheet.

I found this interesting in itself, because I've read that E-2 and E-4, while similar, have different coatings on the film...E-4 being the film that no one wants to run through modern systems because it has a nasty, goopy emulsion. Besides wanting to do everything myself (and not wanting to spend $42 for the only place in the country that develops the stuff), I was intrigued by what I read on the sheet. It's on the sheet, but I will repeat:

You Can Process the Film Yourself: This film should be processed by either Process E-2 or Process E-4. Process E-4 is intended primarily for laboratory use, but you can process this film yourself by using the KODAK EKTACHROME Film Processing Kit, Processes E-2 and E-3, and following the instructions for E-2.

I've cross processed slide film before using a home C-41 kit, and thought it should be possible to do the same for E-2. Encouraged, I did a little research on the Web. Amazingly, while I found a few discussions on the topic, I could not find a single example of this type of processing. Lots of theory, but mostly a lot of, "It probably won't work, but maybe this and this will work." I ended up working out a process that involved both black-and-white and color development.
I decided to use black and white chemicals based on a few basic theories. Number one being that you can develop color film in black-and-white chemicals. I figured that if nothing else worked, I could at least pull some of the silver out and get an image, however faded. Number two being that I've read that the first part of E-2 development is actually black and white development, and the second part is color. I actually found an interesting article here by Kodak stating that you can save color prints afterward if you accidentally develop them in BW chemicals. So the two processes are separate on the same sheet of film. I chose Diafine because it is super easy to use and always yields something, as long as there is something to develop.
As for the color part of development, I have a C-41 development kit. It's a couple months old, but I figured what the hell. I was working on the assumption that either the film would be dead or the developer would be dead, or both.
The biggest issue with current development and past processes is temperature. Current film is developed with very hot water...98-102 degrees F. This would strip the emulsion right off of the older films. The obvious answer to that is to develop at lower temps, which was confirmed in some online discussions. Colder water, about 70F, and longer development times. I figured that if the color developer did nothing, it would at least remove the orange layer from the film (I hoped), allowing for a less dense negative.
One last chemical I added, on a whim. Still worried about the emulsion coming off, I read about hardening agents. A few people suggested pre-hardeners for the film. I decided to go simple and avoid toxic: Sodium Sulfate. This is the stuff used to clear Polaroid 665 and 85 negatives. Reading about it, though, it seems what it does is prevent the gelatin layers from swelling and softening. So, what the heck, I threw in some of that as well.
Okay, so here's my actual process. Even though I had read that the BW development was the first step in E-2 processing, I did the color development first. I did this because I figured there was less of a chance of damaging the color layer if I took care of that first, and I knew it would have little effect on the sliver. And I figured that maybe the Diafine would stand a better chance at pulling the silver if the thick layer was already gone (though maybe this is part of what Blix does, not sure about the exact process).
Here was my actual process. Some of the steps may have been redundant...I have no idea. I'm not really a chemistry person at all, so I wanted to cover all my bases just in case...so I have no idea which steps could have been omitted.

Step 1: pre-rinse
Step 2: 20cc Unicolor C-41 developer at 70F (with 2 tablespoons Sodium Sulfate added) for 10 minutes (about 3x regular development time), agitated 4 cycles every 30 seconds.
Step 3: Diafine Part A (room temp) for 3 minutes
Step 4: Diafine Part B (room temp) for 3 minutes.
Step 5: Color Blix for 6.5 minutes, agitating same as above.
Step 6: Kodak Fixer for 8 minutes, usual agitation.
Step 7: Rinse for 30 minutes.
Step 8 and beyond: Photo-flo, hang, dry, scan, etc.

I didn't save my chemicals, though I probably could have saved the color developer and Blix. I wasn't sure what the color chemicals would do to the Diafine and didn't want to contaminate my supply, so I tossed that.
So I did the development and was first of all surprised and delighted to see images on my negatives! I wasn't sure if the film had lost sensitivity to light, as color film in particular tends to die as it gets older. The negative was gray but not dense and orange, so I wasn't sure if I was looking at BW images or if there was color present. You can't always tell by looking at a negative...sometimes it's amazing what colors are present on a dull looking negative. So, after cutting and scanning, I was double surprised that not only did I have images, but I had usable color images! Sure, the film is old and the processing was odd, so color accuracy wasn't expected...but I honestly didn't expect any image, let alone actual color images. I mean, there just aren't any examples that I could find anywhere of someone doing this successfully. I'm sure it's been done, but with all the people in the world and on the Web messing about with film development, you'd thing that someone would have examples. Guess it's up to me, again! So I present to you E-2 Ektachrome color slide film, expired December 1968, developed with C-41 and Diafine chemicals.

"My god, it's full of stars." Nice! Faded, of course, but a lovely subtle color. I think that using the Diafine helped bring up the contrast in the images. Without it, the slide probably would have been very faded and low(er) contrast. The above image was the most 'true to life' in terms of color. A few more images...

Blues and greens seemed to have fared well...possibly just because they are different from the overall violet cast of the film that other colors might blend into.

Some images had very obvious color, while others seemed to be mostly black-and-white images. This may just be the source material...lots of browns, not a lot of color in the desert in winter.

So there you have it! Makes me wonder what else is possible. I'd like to try this with Kodachrome film, which is another outdated format that can only be developed by a couple places in the world. The general consensus is impossible or at least not ideal, but what's ideal? If it works, and you can get some lovely images out of it, that is ideal. If I want accurate colors and high-quality imaging, I'll get a boring digital camera and do what everyone else is doing. I think I prefer my way.
Okay, two in a row, soak it in for awhile! I may not post again within the month!

SHORT UPDATE: A couple more images from E-2 film, shot with a Rolleiflex. Left out the sodium sulfate this time, and the color developer was fresh.

And just to show that it can be done (and there are also examples on Flickr), here is some Kodacolor-X developed with the same method. Low quality, and the film is pretty bad (expired in 1976 I think), but there is color.

Polapainful Repairs + 195 vs 180: Deathmatch!

2009-02-11T15:28:00.032-07:00

Sometime last spring, I was shooting up north and suddenly the shutter on my Polaroid 195 wouldn't fire. I couldn't figure out why until I got home and noticed that the cable leading from the red button to the shutter had gotten pinched while when I closed the camera. So it would fire on occasion if I pressed down hard enough of the button. I recently decided it was time to fix the stupid thing.
The cable is made up of a couple basic parts. There is the outside coil and an inner wire that pushes through to fire the shutter. First I tried to straighten the coil out by bending it back into some semblance of straight. All I managed to do was crimp the hell out of the thing and make it worse. So much worse, in fact, that the wire wouldn't push through the coil at all. The only way to fix it at this point was to replace it.
Sorry about the half-ass pictures through this, but this was really one of the bigger pain-in-the-butt things I've done with a camera. I was very annoyed through most of the process. I just wanted to get it over with without injuring myself anymore than necessary (I have a huge blood blister on one finger from the pliers and managed to stab myself in the thumb a few times with the shutter wire). All in all, this was about a three-hour project.
Here is the crimped cable after cutting it off of the camera.

That was the easiest part...clipping the wire. Nothing else was easy. I had to remove the original cable from the 195. This is the end of it after I got it out.

The brass end is the part that is stuck in the camera body. Now, I first tested the removal of this part on my 102 that I use as a pinhole camera, because I knew I didn't need it. I just used a screwdriver on the top and wedged it under and it popped right out. Easy! Moved on to the 195. Not easy. Really, really hard to get out. I basically had to pound it out with a hammer and then snap it so I could pull it out. I ruined the silver metal ring that surrounds it, but I had the ring from the 102, so that was okay (you will see all of this when I start putting the 195 back together).
For the new cable, I found a Countdown 90 on eBay for cheap. I wanted this camera because the body was plastic. I just ripped off the top and crushed the plastic around the brass until I had my usable cable remaining.

Not much left on the top of that camera. But I think I payed $7 for the Countdown. Okay, so I have my outer coil and my new wire...time to put it back together. This was the easiest part.

The silver ring goes first (this is what holds the red button), then the coil goes through. That brass part on the top actually holds one of the front focusing brackets, so it has to be secure. I just took a screwdriver and hammer and tapped it into place until it was all the way in and tight. Then you feed the wire in through the top. the wire is attached to the red button and has a spring under it to provide resistance. When you push the button to fire the shutter, you want it to spring back, not stay pushed in.

Simple enough. Now it becomes a pain again (getting the camera apart was annoying...this part had me cussing). At the end you have this bare wire. This is the part that will attach to the front and fire the shutter.

Well, that wire alone isn't going to push anything. There is a little piece of brass I had to remove to get all of this apart that acts as a bumper for the firing mechanism. Getting this back on was...impossible.

It's blurry, but it's that little thing at the end. I had to tape the red button down so I would have enough wire to work with. This is seriously the hardest piece of metal ever. I could slide it over the end, but I couldn't get the metal to pinch the wire. I tried for at least 30 minutes. I squeezed it, I pounded it with a hammer. When I finally made a dent in the thing, I popped it off at the same time so it wouldn't fit back on the wire properly. So...screw all that. What I finally did was take a piece of the coil from the old cable and superglued it to the end, let it dry, then pinched that with pliers. It worked, fortunately. If it hadn't, I would have had to taken it somewhere and had a piece clipped on there.

Again, very blurry, but you can see it sitting at the end. This took care of all the really tough stuff. I've kind of breezed over all of this and it seems pretty simple, but it was all incredibly annoying. Everything is tiny and my tools are big (that's what she said). I'm over it now, but I was about ready to take my hammer to the whole thing. Ugh.
So now all I had to do was hook it back up on the front. I also superglued the thing that holds the cable to the bellows. The cable is held in place by a metal piece that is held in place by three of the tiniest screws ever. That's a lot of fun, as well, messing with tiny screws in an area that doesn't allow much room for a screwdriver. I have a set of small screwdrivers I got from a hobby store, but they are still a bit long and barely fit in the space available.

When putting this back together, you need to make sure the cable is advanced enough that the wire will reach the shutter release. This was the easiest part of the project, though. And, in the end, we have a working shutter cable once again.

All of the shutter cables on folding cameras work the same, but I wouldn't recommend this project unless you really love your camera, or it's expensive like the 195. This post feels like a rush job, but I barely wanted to screw around with taking pictures while dealing with this mess. Worked out well in the end, though.

I also got the Countdown 90 for another reason. I was curious about the electronic timer on the back.

I was hoping it used some kind of watch battery and that I could swap out the back with my 195. The 195 has a mechanical timer. The original was broken when I got the camera, and the replacement I got from another camera was also broken.

I'm not a big fan of the thing, mostly because it sticks out and digs into my belly when it's hanging from my neck. So I was hoping to stick a back with the electronic timer onto it. Well, the timer is powered by the same batteries that power the meter.

The 195 (and 180) actually has the same battery compartment, but it's empty.

So all of this would require a lot more work than I want to do. Rewiring and all kinds of stuff. Plus the Countdown is a different color and plastic, so that part would just look like crap.

I'll just have to find a cheap folder with a working mechanical timer someday. I don't even really use timers anymore, but it's the principal of the thing. It should work!
Okay, so why am I so concerned with getting my 195 in shape when I have my 180? I want to take my 195 to Japan! I did a few test prints to see what the difference between the 180 and 195 was. They are very similar, but they have different lenses. The 195 has a larger lens and the aperture is 3.8 to 64, while the 180 has a smaller lens and the aperture is 4.5 to 90. I don't think I've found any reason to use the f90 yet (that's very small), but it turns out there is a big difference at the low end. Using Fuji FP-3000B, I took the same shot in my living room in low light. First I set both cameras at the widest...3.8 for the 195 and 4.5 for the 180. I set the cameras at 30 for speed, which is pretty slow and allows time for some camera shake if you aren't steady. The difference is apparent...

Huge difference in exposure between the two. Next I set both at 60 for shutter speed...

So the 195 at 60 is about equal to the 180 at 30. This makes the 195 much more versatile in low light, which is something I want when I'm shooting in Tokyo. So what about a difference in quality? I've read that the 180 produces a sharper image than the 195. I tested that theory out and basically found the two cameras to be exactly the same in picture quality. I shot ID-UV, and used the same pack to prevent differences in film quality. Both cameras were set at f8 and 250. On top is the 195, then the 180, and then the Colorpack III (which auto-exposes), just for comparison.

And once more at infinity focusing, f16/60.

Again, no difference that I can see. If one ever has sharper images than the other, it may be from the different focusing systems. The 180 has the single-window Zeiss focus, where focus and framing is done through one viewfinder...

...while the 195 has the dual-window focus, where you focus and frame in separate finders.

I have no issues with one over the other, personally. The Zeiss does have a tendency to drift after awhile. The focus doesn't line up properly in the viewfinder. Mine is fine, but I noticed this while checking out some other cameras in a shop.
The one thing I do like about the 180 is the super-obvious EV system for setting exposure. I didn't get really good at this until I got the 180 (I don't use a light meter). Now I always know where to start and can make typically accurate adjustments on the fly.

The 195 has something similar, with some numbers painted red, but not nearly as user-friendly as the 180. I'll just have to make some notes before I go.

So, the Polaroid 195 and 180.

Which is better? Which should you buy? Can't really say. The 180 is an older camera than the 195, and the 195 tends to sell for more, though I payed the same for both (around $200-$250). Chances are a 195 you find will be in better shape than a 180. The mount around the lens of the 180 seems to be much softer and dents, which makes it tougher to get filters on the camera. But the 180 has the Zeiss finder, though you can get one from a cheaper Polaroid camera and replace the finder on the 195. I have no problem with focusing and framing in separate windows, though, so I just left it. The 180 has the nice EV system and the aperture squeezes down to f90, if you can find a use for that. The 195 has a wider aperture at 3.8, making it more versatile in low light. Other than that, though, there isn't really much else different about them. So it all comes down to personal preference, and what you are willing to pay. I'm keeping both of mine, so I have two manual cameras to use at the same time if I want. Hell, I like my cheap Colorpack III as much as these two (that's what I used to shoot the 195/180 shot). It's not always the equipment, it's what you do with it.
Anyway, this was WAAAAY longer than I was planning, and I'm super hungry. Seeya.

The Impossible Project: A future for instant film...

2009-01-18T12:43:00.008-07:00

For those that haven't heard, there is a new instant film producer in town...we hope. Florian Kaps, the man behind Polanoid and Polapremium (formerly Unsaleable), has started something he calls The Impossible Project. This is an attempt to re-energize and recreate the integral film market, which most of you know as Polaroid 600 film. The plan isn't to continue the Polaroid brand name or to continue existing Polaroid product lines, but rather to market a new brand of integral film, with new chemistry, for existing Polaroid integral cameras. According to this article, there will initially be two film types, one compatible with 600 cameras, and one for SX-70 cameras.
Florian and his associates have actually purchased the equipment from the Enschede, Amsterdam factory and leased the facility for 10 years. Along with a cadre of Polaroid experts, the plan is to produce a new integral film by the end of 2009, with probable release in 2010.
This is very exciting! I typically prefer peel-apart over integral (peel-apart was produced in Mexico and it has been suggested that the equipment has been trashed), but instant film is good in any form. I wish them luck!

You can help, too, by going to the site and filling out the form with ideas about whatever you feel you can help with. For me, the best way I can think to support the cause is to spread the word and continue to use and show my love for instant film. It may not be the most important issue facing us in these modern times, but I believe it is a just cause! Check out the site! There are some cool Polaroids of the location and equipment, and you can read about the people involved and the goals of the project!
These are a few of more more favorite integral film shots to wrap this up...

Peace through Polaroids!

016-0306-000 C-30 Series Camera Adaptor Kit...

2009-01-13T22:18:00.028-07:00

...for Tektronix 400 Series Oscilloscopes with 8x10 (0.8/DIV) Max Display, with C-30A Camera and C-30 Series Camera Pack Film Back.

Ummm...yeah. What he said. What did he say? Basically, this:

I grabbed this nifty piece of industrial technology for a scant 99 cents on eBay. It was super dirty, but underneath the grime I found a minty camera! So what exactly is this camera for? Well, oscilloscopes, of course.
So lemme go grab my oscilloscope and hook this baby up. Oh, what? I don't have an oscilloscope? Hmmm...so what good is this thing? Lots of good...lots. of. good. As it turns out. See, the interesting thing about this camera is that it is built to take photos of a screen that is seemingly microns away from the front of the camera. This means that it takes pictures of things really close to the front of the camera...anything that is super close to the camera. Close= macro. So I have a 99 cent macro Polaroid camera! Nice.
Anyway, let's check out the camera. I'll break it down for you. First of all, this thing is big and heavy. All that blue? Top-grade cast metal. Total machine shop quality gear here...straight outta shop class in high school. Compared to the Colorpack III, it's like Frankenstein's monster.

No plans to strap this around my neck and ride around on my bike. But plans change, baby. Okay, so it's huge and heavy. How does is work? You can see it has a Polaroid back on it...

The back comes apart from the rest of the camera. (Doh! I totally had film in the camera when I opened this up. Dumbass.)

Interesting to note the cast for the Polaroid back includes an indentation where a shutter button would normally go.

The camera body is made up of a few different sections. The back end obviously hooks to the Polaroid back, and has a locking mechanism (or latch) on top, and a tripod mount below.

Fun to see the inspection date. Probably the last time it was used, as well? There was a dried-up pack of Type 107 in the camera when I got it. Dried-up as in didn't work. But I get excited even if I get a pack of non-working film. It's old film! Can't help it!
So there are two sets of bellows. The shutter itself is in the middle of the body, not the end. The front of the camera is just a large open area, where you would attach it to an oscilloscope.

The shutter has both f-stop and shutter speed settings. The aperture goes from 2.8 to 16... so it opens quite wide. You can also see the shutter release and a spot for a release cable.

The shutter speeds range from Bulb to 60.

In the above shot you see the other features of the camera. There are two separate bellows. The rear bellow is for magnification, and the front bellow is for focus (with a focus lock to prevent drift). The magnification settings are from .7 to 1.5, with a diamond shape between .8 and .9, which seems to be the point at which the edge of the camera isn't visible in the shot. I would imagine that the numbers mean exactly what they say...that .7 is 30 percent smaller than the actual image, while 1.5 is 150 percent larger. The focus makes less sense to me. The numbers are from 1 to 10. But when you have the focus set at farthest away from the image (bellows short), it sits at 7, and fully extended, the knob turns a couple times around. So I have no real frame of reference for what these mean. It's even tough to say "I had the focus set at 8," because there is 8, and then there is 8 again when you turn the knob around past 7 again. So I basically use a bit of guesswork and intuition when focusing. It's not all that important anyway, for reasons I will explain when I show some output images.
Here is the camera at lowest magnification and closest focus...

And highest magnification and furthest focus...

And, just because, here is the bottom with some mystery port.

Okay, so how do you use this camera? I thought that I would have to waste a bunch of film trying to figure out how it works. I figured I would have a bunch of outta-focus photos. I discovered in one shot that you pretty much just have to make sure that whatever you are shooting has to be somewhere within about half an inch from the front window on the camera. This was my first shot, using Fuji FP-100C. I set the shutter speed at 60 and the f-stop at 8.

Wow, loverly! Some massive depth there. Nice pinpoint focusing on the leaf tops and then it just fades in the distance. I made a serious attempt to keep track of my magnification and focus settings for all of my experiment shots, but it got really difficult with the odd focus numbers. Here is one shot at the smallest magnification (.7) and the furthest focus (the 7 that is 'point zero').

What you are seeing is the metal frame in the shot. But it most definitely has a wider focal depth. On the magnification bar, there is a diamond shape between .8 and .9. This seems to be the point at which the metal frame isn't visible in your shot (though if you pull the focus all the way back, you can see a bit of it). I really wanted to tell you the settings, but in the end I don't think it really matters. The results are generally similar regardless of magnification, outside of the two extremes. Here is magnification set at 'diamond' and focus furthest away.

And focus at maximum.

Other than the frame edge, it's really hard to tell the difference. There are so many variables, particularly with how far you actually are from the objects. And because the camera is open on the end, stuff like leaves and such can actually sit inside the camera. I found the best results generally came from setting the camera at 'diamond' and the focus at 7-8 the second time around (I guess you could call it 1.7 or 1.8). It's hard to 'mess up' a picture. If it's somewhere near the front, it will be in focus. Everything else will be blur. A couple more shots with the Fuji FP-100C.

And one shot of me. I just held the camera up to my face.

Neat shot, but it illustrates one of the main problems with the camera. It's so big and the lens is set back so far that it tends to block the available light. I had to try and position the camera so the light was shining from behind and to the side, or all would be in darkness.
I tried some Fuji FP-3000B, as well. I think that those that take photos of oscilloscopes mostly use 3000 speed film. It was a lot tougher to use than the 100 film because of the limited aperture and speed settings, which are mostly slow and wide. I just found it a lot less forgiving and the balance between under- and overexposure was pretty slim. Pretty much anything I shot outside was overexposed. Here are a couple attempts with indoor lighting.

I also threw in a pack of ID-UV and wasted a couple shots. Nice tones, for sure.

So a neat camera, eh? How I use it in the future remains to be seen. I've never been a huge fan of macro. There is some interesting stuff, but, really, how many shots of leaves and flowers do I want to do? So I need to think about how to use it without falling into the usual cliches. A leaf or flower shot every now and then is okay, maybe a bug if i can get one, but I want to maybe be a bit more original. The rusty gears are grinding away.
Just because, here are some different oscilloscope Polaroid cameras. All of these images were nabbed from eBay, just so you can see some design variations. The roll film back is interesting.

What's next? Well, I did a little comparison between my two high-end Polaroid cameras, the 180 and 195.

The results were less than surprising, but still somewhat interesting. More on that later. I also picked up a Fuji Instax 200, which is wide-angle integral film. The camera is built like a Fisher Price camera for adult hands...huge and goofy looking. But it might be fun.

Also got a Polaroid SLR 680 SE to talk about....see how it compares to the SX-70. All that and more, soon! Later, doodz.

The Girls of Polaroid + Dippits! Yummy!

2009-01-06T17:48:00.039-07:00

Okay, I've obviously been single too long, because my first blog post of the year involves checking out all the cute girls in vintage Polaroid instruction booklets. I've even named all of them. Ha ha...just kidding (shhh, Brenda and Janine, you know I don't mean it). A nice nonsense way to begin 2009.
I am honestly curious what the marketing scheme was behind naming a camera Swinger. I assume it's because the original was the first hardcase Polaroid (for Type 20) and sported a handle that would allow the camera to swing at your side. That's the smart answer. I prefer to think that it had something to do with using the cameras at swinger parties or some such. We all know Polaroid cameras make great orgy cameras. Anyway, the Big Swinger 3000...aptly named because it was bigger than the original Swinger and took only 3000 speed film.

Dude, get out of the shot...yer ruining the vibe. I think she is looking at the YES.
This lovely lady is holding a Colorpack II.

And her lovely friend.

They are both so...lovely.
This woman is holding a generic folding camera. Theoretically an M60, but I guess she must appear in multiple booklets for various cameras. Here, we see her vertical and, ahem...horizontal. Wink wink, nudge nudge.

A rather smart-looking chick and a Square Shooter. She must be shooting a short person.

And another with a Square Shooter 2. An equally attractive lady with a more attractive Square Shooter (I think the original Square Shooter is one of the uglier Polaroid cameras, only slightly better looking than a Spectra).

She's just as cute as a button. A cute button, of course. Not one of those ugly buttons.
This hottie with a Super Shooter is just downright shekshy, with her sculpted eyebrows. Get a firm grip with your left hand? Please do.

What are you doing now, my lovely Super Shootress? Besides being 35 years older. Bet you haven't aged a day. Maybe 35 years, but not a day.
I only have one lady with an SX-70. And by lady, I mean...you know what I mean. Wink. Nudge.

I guess the SX-70 was already sexy enough without female presence.
This is my own personal addition to the storyline, a friend and a Super Shooter. I'll keep it clean for her.

Check this out. Some hot developing action (clean didn't last).

Oh yeah....pull that tab. Uh huh..don't stop. You know how I like it...

Man, those are some excited Polaroids. They defy gravity.

And peeeel.

Whoops, got a little excited there, made a mess with my developing goop.
ANYway, I guess that's enough of that. That certainly was spicy. On a funny side note, I saw this in a Square Shooter booklet.

I'm all like, ummm...what type of film is that? I've never heard of Type 75! So I'm looking all over the Web and eBay. Well, duh, I realized it's the ISO. Film Speed. Oh. Ha. Dumb!

And while I'm talking about complete nonsense, I made the most pointless Polaroid purchase ever to start the year out. It was only 99 cents, so it didn't break the bank or anything, but...what the heck am I going to do with this stuff?

Dippit. So, what is Dippit? A couple posts ago I talked about a couple rolls of Type 46 I had obtained. Well, this is the stuff you dip your Type 46 slides into. Fixer, basically. Well, not basically. It is fixer. Open up the case and we find four boxes of the stuff. Nice stains. Maybe I should be wearing gloves. Nah, what's a little finger cancer.

Someone obviously didn't store this end up. Let's check out one of the boxes.

And inside...

Those chemicals look tasty and expired. This is encouraging:

Old (hey, only 34 years), flammable, possibly unstable chemicals. I think I'll store them next to my bed, close to my pillow. I may open these up at some point and rinse out the chemicals. Or make a cocktail.
So the name implies that you dip the slides into the Dippit. The instructions explain it better than I could.

Simple enough. Heh. Be sure the lips of the Dippit are clean. Heh heh. That's what she said.
I'm not going to use it, of course. If the Type 46 magically works, I'll probably just use regular fixer. If that .01 percent chance that it will work actually occurs.
Dippit. I buy it so you don't have to. Ugh, it feels like my eyes are burning now.

Last shot, a funny photo from a Polaroid booklet, explaining that all of your subjects should be lined up and looking away from the flash (spare the eyes). And at least one should have funny hair. I took a photo of the photo with an SX-70.

A few things to talk about in the future. I bought a special Polaroid for shooting oscilloscope screens (for 99 cents, even). Should be interesting. Also, I'll be heading to Japan for a few in March, hang with the famous Skorj. Need to figure out how to get a bunch of Polaroid film over there. I figure I can buy Fuji FP-3000P when I'm there. Should be some good times.
ANYway, talk later.

New lenses, new films, good times.

2008-12-21T06:22:00.024-07:00

A couple things to talk about, mostly Polaroid related (of course). First, it's a funky eBay purchase I recently made...a set of Polaroid camera accessories, mostly redundant and completely useless. Check this out:

And that's minus a couple boxes I gave to a friend. For $9.99, I got five copiers for Swinger 20s, one copier for the Big Swinger 3000, two lens sets for 100 series cameras, one lens set for the Swinger 20, and one lens set for the Big Swinger 3000. The latter was the one I was interested in, as that's the only (usable) camera I have of the bunch. I think Kalimar is the Japanese company name, and Kaligar is the imported brand.
So I tried out the Big Swinger 3000 set. It comes with a wide-angle lens, a telephoto lens and a viewfinder attachment, all in a nice little case. Unfortunately, the velvety red interior is now red dust.

Here is the naked Big Swinger 3000...

And with a lens attached...

Not exactly elegant, but still pretty cool. So how do they work? I didn't want to waste a bunch of film doing the same shot with each lens more than once, so I just did one scene for comparison, using Fuji FP-3000B. First is a natural shot, no extra lens.

Then the telephoto lens...

And then the wide-angle lens...

The only reason the last shot is lighter is because I was messing with the exposure, as the first two were so dark. It was a very cloudy, chilly day, so the light was low. Definitely a difference between the three! I actually think I like the telephoto shot. It warps the sides a bit and has a nice vignette. They will be interesting to use with some people in the shots. This is a closer shot taken with the telephoto lens.

Can't really tell, but it would be framed much tighter without the lens. Very dark, as well. It was a dark corner of a building, but this brings up the main problem with the lenses. The YES exposure system has a bit of trouble functioning through the extra glass. The system is technically all manual. You twist the knob until you can see YES in the window, which is really just opening and closing the aperture (the camera only shoots at one speed). With the lens attached, you can barely see the YES at all, so after a couple shots I found myself taking the lens off to set the exposure.
Here are a couple goops from above.

One of the few times I've gotten solarization from FP-3000B. I think it must have something to do with temperature while developing, because it was probably 38F outside. So, anyway, another toy to play with. Oh, here is a copier...

I'll mess with it at some point, but I'm not sure quite how it works. For one thing, you are supposed to be at least five feet from your subject when using the camera. And I'm not sure how you get enough light to expose your copy without getting reflection. The Big Swinger 3000 was a cheap camera, so it's not like this is a professional studio setup. According to the box, you just attach it to the camera like above, with nothing about an additional lens. It says you can take close-up shots with it as well, which makes very little sense to me, knowing the basics of focal lengths, etc.
Actually, I'm going to leave all that there, but try it right now. Duh. I used a frame from a Peanuts comic.

Ummm...yeah. About what I expected. I fired the shutter twice because I knew there wouldn't be enough light available. You can see the frame edge in the shot, as well. Sooo...let's try one with the telephoto lens. I know it won't work, but maybe it will.

Nope, even worse. So, I have no idea. There must be a close-up lens you are supposed to use, but it says nothing about it on the box. It just pretends you can hook it to the camera and magically take shots from four inches away. Oh well, still interesting.
A quick bit about the new Polaroid films from Polapremium, 100 Chocolate and 100 Sepia. I was going to save this for a separate post, as these things tend to go a bit long, but I want to get it over with while I'm in the mood (baby).
I didn't buy any 100 Blue, but I may at some point. It might work well for the summer monsoon. First is the 100 Chocolate.

I've used the original Type 80 Chocolate...this is just more of the same tastiness, except more of it. I shot a pack in my Colorpack III and was very pleased with the results. Chocolate is one of my favorites, and the 100 didn't disappoint. Lovely texture, lovely tones. Gives many of the photos a watercolor effect. Here are a few examples...

Then we have the 100 Sepia.

It's a bit of an odd man out, sitting at 1500 ISO. This makes it difficult to use in a non-manual Polaroid camera (though people have gotten decent results from some of them, so far). I used my 180 so I could take advantage of the exposure range. I started I think at about F16 and 125. It was a dark day, so adjustments will be made depending on light. It's an interesting film, very much like 667 with a sepia undertone. It's cold and warm at the same time. It has the cold, harsh look of 667 while still having a wider range between the light and dark areas. And with the sepia adding a bit of warmth, the effect is different than any other available Polaroid film. A few shots, of course...

You can see the wide exposure range, from under to overexposed. I don't use a light meter or anything, but that keeps things interesting. As an added bonus, it makes a nice goop, as well. Much like 667 and Fuji FP-3000B, but a bit softer.

That's it for now. Next time I want to show you some Polaroid film that expired in 1989, and it still works! I leave you with a shot of a sweet batch of 120 film I picked up for cheap, all expired between 1969 and 1972.

I love Verichrome and it usually ages very well. It will be interesting to use the vintage slide film, also. Seeya, peeps. Happy Holidays, whatever you happen to celebrate.

Polaroid Pinhole V 1.02

2008-12-08T12:03:00.020-07:00

I've made a couple Polaroid pinholes in the past, most recently using a ProPack back. That camera is now defunct, as in no more. The ProPack back is currently attached to a box camera. Well, I kinda missed my pinhole, and I thought it about time to make a "proper" pinhole Polaroid. Something a bit more permanent that doesn't look like crap. I bought an Automatic 102 awhile ago that I've never used because I didn't feel like messing with the batteries. That, and I have 10 other Polaroid cameras to use. The 102 is a folder, as well, and I thought that would make more sense for a Pinhole, as I could adjust the focal length at any time. And it has a tripod mount, which my previous pinholes were lacking. Though this camera doesn't have a "foot" on the front like my 180 and 195, so it leans forward (and down) when you place it on the ground. I'll have to make a small piece to brace it.
So I took the thing apart. Not a lot of pictures of this process, as it was basically messy and just involved removing as many innards as I could, while keeping the parts I needed.

I used the same pinhole I've used for most of my other projects. I just taped it to the underside of the front cover.

With previous pinholes, I've just used a piece of tape on the front as a "shutter". I wanted something a bit nicer for this one. I thought about using the actual camera shutter...most simple cameras just require removing a spring to allow you to slide the shutter open and closed. Not this camera. The shutter is quite complicated, probably because of the "cocking" system. You cock the shutter with one lever and push the button to fire it. It had a lot of little springs and levers inside. So I just took it out. The camera does have an aperture plate, though. I just taped up the holes I didn't want to use (on a side note, this still has the same plate as the 100, because it had multiple aperture sizes, even though this camera only uses two of them...basically 3000 and 75). So now I can just turn the plate to open and closed.

Another issue to deal with was lightleaks. The camera originally had a seal that I destroyed when I pulled it apart.

I had to think about this one for a day or so. I thought about using some kind of sponge, but I couldn't think of any way to guarantee that light wouldn't shine right through it. While browsing though the craft section at the grocery store, I happened upon the perfect solution...black clay.

I just made a seal with the clay...

The clay is also oven-bake clay, so I don't have to worry about it melting when I take it out in the summer. Chances are it will just cook and harden.
Next, it was just a matter of putting it back together. You can see I snapped a piece off by accident...I just used superglue to fix it. And, in the end, we have a very nice looking Polaroid pinhole!

The simple shutter system. Black is closed, red is open. And I can just cover the front with my hand while opening and closing to prevent camera shake.

I also removed a spring from the underside, because the bellow would slide shut by itself when not latched open.

So, it looks nice, but is it functional? I did three test shots from my patio, at three different focal lengths, using Fuji FP-100C. These are 15 second exposures.
First, fully extended (that's what she said).

Then halfway. You can see that the angle is much wider.

And then, just for kicks, bellows closed.

Interesting, but not something I'll probably do again. Next, a couple self shots, the first fully extended, the second somewhere in between, all at 10 seconds.

The first shot, I must have let the shutter open a bit while the bellows were closed. I look bald in the second shot. And, there is obviously some point at which the edges of the pinhole become visible on the film. I'll have to figure out where exactly that is. Another issue is with the bellow not being stable. If the camera is level, everything is fine, but if the camera is at an angle, gravity makes it want to close, so the pinhole moves while exposing. Though the effect is pretty cool.

So I want to come up with some simple, not ugly mechanism to brace the camera at certain focal lengths. I'll have to think about that for awhile. One last shot into the sun...

That's it! This is a much easier pinhole to take out in the field. It's more compact and I don't have to worry about the tape peeling off and creating a bunch of leaks. Just a couple small issues to tackle to make it easier to plan my shots, and I will be set!
I almost titled this post "It's not a pinhole, it's a funhole!" But that just sounds wrong (and oh so right).
For those into Polaroid that haven't noticed, Polapremium (previously Unsaleable) has three new Polaroid 100 types. 100 Chocolate, similar to the 80 Chocolate; 100 Blue, which looks like expired ID-UV to me, maybe a bit softer; and 100 Sepia, a nice, sharp, sepia-toned film with an ISO of 1500, oddly enough. Must be either based on an old recipe (there was a sepia Polaroid film a long time ago), or it's a combination of 667 and Chocolate. I've ordered some, of course, though I skipped the 100 Blue for now. I'll post some impressions when I get it. I love the 80 Chocolate, so I imagine the 100 will just be more magic. The shipping is a bit killer, so if you can combine an order with a friend, you'll be able to buy another pack of film.
Anyway, I'm sure I have other things I need to post about in the future, but I'll think about that stuff later...
Oh, and check out Gake no Ue no Ponyo if you get the chance. Very nice Ghibli feature, made me smile.