Converting box camera to plate

[David Mitchell]

Hi all,

I am tempted as a long term project to convert a basic box camera - can pick up a basic Kodak box camera for very little due to the fact you can't get the film anymore. I am thinking of converting a box camera to accept perhaps some photographic paper or perhaps wet plate.

This would of course be a 'special occasion' sort of camera, or indeed something like a field camera but without the larger (and usually more expensive) equipment needed.

I am just wondering if it would be worth trying or if I should just look at getting a 1/4 plate camera instead of converting a film camera to plate.

I would only be modding a very very common camera as I don't want to destroy anything vintage and important.

 

[Brian Moore]

Wet plate,...? There are easier ways to capture an image. By the way, many box cameras used 120 film. Still available, of course. Many used 620, which is the same size as 120 but the spool is a smaller diameter. !20 film can be re-spooled onto 620 spools. Or, you could convert a box camera to use 35mm film.

On the other hand, if you're up for the challenge of creating a wet plate medium I'd love to see how you get on.

 

[David Mitchell]

Ive just had a further look into it and apparently its not too difficult, you simply attach the plate onto the back of the removable film holder. I have a Kodak Six-20 and as long as you have a 620 takeup reel then you can simply trim the 120 film and it fits right in

Im tempted to try wet plate at some point as I like the idea of tintypes, but I will be staying with film for a while yet, im getting more and more into 35mm due to the fact you can have up to 36 exposures rather than one or 8.

I know that you can get a kit for the Holga to convert to 35mm from 120, might be interesting to look at maybe converting a box camera to run 35mm as I can get more shots out of it.

I just like the 'vintage' look of the older plate films due to the simplicity of the lenses etc.

 

[Brian Moore]

I have a Kodak Six-20 and as long as you have a 620 takeup reel then you can simply trim the 120 film and it fits right in

You don't have to trim 120 film to fit onto a 620 spool. All you have to do is remove it from the 120 spool and attach it, along with its backing paper, to the 620 spool. (In a darkroom or changing bag, of course.)

 

[David Mitchell]

You don't have to trim 120 film to fit onto a 620 spool. All you have to do is remove it from the 120 spool and attach it, along with its backing paper, to the 620 spool. (In a darkroom or changing bag, of course.)

What I mean is you can trim the edge of the spool itself and it will fit directly into a 620 camera - no respooling needed

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...1-fitting-120-film-into-620-camera-guide.html

 

[Brian Moore]

What I mean is you can trim the edge of the spool itself and it will fit directly into a 620 camera - no respooling needed

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...1-fitting-120-film-into-620-camera-guide.html

Not always. For example, even after trimming a 120 spool so it would physically fit into my Kodak Vigilant 620, the sheer bulk of the film (which of course, was wound around a big, fat 120 spool) prevented the back door of the camera from closing. I was forced to re-spool the 120 film onto a 620 spool for it to fit.

I have a feeling there are only a few cameras that allow you to use a 120 spool, even if trimmed. You might want to look for a Brownie Hawkeye Flash Model camera. These were made for 620 film, but a 120 spool will fit right into the delivery side. You still have to use a 620 spool in the take up side, though. I read that Kodak figured this out at some point in the decade-long production run of that camera, and modified it to take only 620 as originally intended. However, I have 5 Brownie Hawkeye Flash Models and they all accept a 120 spool in the delivery side. They're quite inexpensive, too.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Ive just had a further look into it and apparently its not too difficult, you simply attach the plate onto the back of the removable film holder. I have a Kodak Six-20 and as long as you have a 620 takeup reel then you can simply trim the 120 film and it fits right in

Im tempted to try wet plate at some point as I like the idea of tintypes, but I will be staying with film for a while yet, im getting more and more into 35mm due to the fact you can have up to 36 exposures rather than one or 8.

I know that you can get a kit for the Holga to convert to 35mm from 120, might be interesting to look at maybe converting a box camera to run 35mm as I can get more shots out of it.

I just like the 'vintage' look of the older plate films due to the simplicity of the lenses etc.

the reason most would choose to shoot wet plate is for the look of the photo due to the film, not nessasarily the lens ... Maybe both, but then the lens would likely be some massive brass beasty on the front of some massive mahogany box of some ilk

wet plate would be a massive pain in the ***, especially with a little crappy box camera

If you are wishing to achive the look from tthese older lenses there are far far more simple ways ...
A box brownie that takes 120mm film would be a good place to start!

might I suggest walking befor you can run with some of this stuff... I've been taking photos for 20 years and find the idea of wet plate photography probhibativly complex!

it might be worth posting some images that you like; the "look" you want to acheive and we can perhaps point you in a direction that will lead you to similar results without the ball ache of converting a box camera to wet plate ... Before you have even shot wet plate, or with a box camera(?)

Dont let me quash your ambition David, I'm not trying to do that, just encourage you to take some of the nessasary steps toward these ambitions

 

[Hamish Gill]

... Also, you won't get 36 exposures out of a 35mm roll of film on a 120 camera due to the area of film used per shot.
you will also find it so hard to wind the film on accurately so as to avoid either overlap or such big gaps between shots that you further lower the shot count per roll ...
That said, images taken on larger format cameras with 35mm film look quite cool where it goes right to the edge of the film

 

[Brian Moore]

Yes,...as Hamish says, they look quite cool. You see the sprocket holes and you get something of a panoramic effect.

 

[David Mitchell]

Apologies Hamish, I guess my enthusiasm for cameras is getting the better of me, I will get my 120 film negatives scanned in to see how well the basic Kodak shot. I am enjoying shooting with the more mechanical cameras as I like how everything works, im getting ahead of myself a bit lol

I know what you mean about the 35mm film in an MF camera looking at the Holga kits etc, you kinda forget that its not just the centre of the film that is light sensitive!

I have decided to set a target of 1,000 frames of film before I look into modding and experimenting with normal film cameras or trying conversions etc. Should keep me busy for a while!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Don't apologise David, your enthusiasm is admirable!
as I say, there are just quite a few steps to walk before jumping straight into hardcore old school taking a portable darkroom where ever you go type photography ... You know what I mean?!

We all get carried away anyway, I have had to talk my self out of buying a http://www.realphotographersforum.com/lenses/7468-7-aero-ektar.html today ...
I really love the look of shots I have seen taken with them ... But I have only ever taken a couple of shots with a large format camera, and I've not processed them yet ...

 

[David Mitchell]

Yeah, I think its kinda the stage after developing your own films lol its why I am prefering black and white photography as its something I can develop myself, I will make sure that any colour film I use is C41 so I can get it developed easily! Which is why I grabbed those cheap £1 films.

I didn't talk myself out of buying things and now have that Argus C2 brick and an Nikkor F2.8 35mm lens (back when they were built properly using metal lol) which will now mean I can use my D3100 with a standard '50mm prime' and im enjoying shooting with that.

It seems that I am getting more and more into 35mm as you get more shots per roll and I guess im not blowing it up to billboard so I guess I don't really NEED MF or LF photos.

Im trying to put my finger on why I am so enthusiastic, I think its just the fact that with film you have to take your time to take each photo. I also like the tangible aspect of film, rather than just a file off a memory card which never physically exists unless you print it off.

I guess im a bit old school like that, im into vintage and antique items as I feel that things built these days are a bit 'throwaway' whereas older items are built properly using real skill to put together. Kinda the same with audio as I have a HMV 102 portable gramophone using Shellac records (not the newer vinyl) which are acoustically recorded and not electronically recorded.

Its probably just me being odd

 

[Brian Moore]

Perhaps you have a bit of the Luddite in you like I do, David!

 

[David Mitchell]

Perhaps you have a bit of the Luddite in you like I do, David!

I sometimes feel that new doesn't always mean better, I mean im all for new tech and have a full on gaming rig I built myself, but there are certain things I feel are more 'purer' so to speak when they are done traditionally, although with photography its about the image and not how it was shot, although you get a different feeling shooting with a vintage film camera vs a digital camera.

 

[Brian Moore]

you get a different feeling shooting with a vintage film camera vs a digital camera.

Yes. I feel fulfilled when I shoot film. Not so with digital. Not sure why.

 

[David Mitchell]

Yes. I feel fulfilled when I shoot film. Not so with digital. Not sure why.

I guess its because you only have up to 36 photos in a 35mm or 8 photos or so with MF cameras, compared to thousands and thousands on a DSLR so you don't really need worry about shooting a bad photo as you can just take another one, whereas with film it would be a waste.

I think it might also be that shooting film with older cameras is more involved as everything is manual (well most stuff is manual) meaning you have to do something to set up the camera for the shot rather than just pressing a button and the camera does all the work.

 

[Paul Lange]

Going back to the topic of wet plate, if I have understood correctly part of the effect is due to the process. As the format is huge it is hi res but due to the method the film emulsion is not exactly a nice regular even coating on the paper. The other part is due to the lenses having shallow depths of field and often a nice transition to the OOF areas hence the eyes tend to be bright and really stand out on portraits (the focal point) Having a small wet plate camera could give really interesting results but it may not have the impact that you are looking for.

 

[David Mitchell]

Going back to the topic of wet plate, if I have understood correctly part of the effect is due to the process. As the format is huge it is hi res but due to the method the film emulsion is not exactly a nice regular even coating on the paper. The other part is due to the lenses having shallow depths of field and often a nice transition to the OOF areas hence the eyes tend to be bright and really stand out on portraits (the focal point) Having a small wet plate camera could give really interesting results but it may not have the impact that you are looking for.

Thanks for your input, I was thinking about tinplate, apparently you can fit 1/4 plates into the box camera, I guess the issue is swapping out plates etc as I would need a darkroom/massive changing bag wherever I shoot it lol.

I was thinking that I would have a smaller plate and basically hold the plate where the film would go so the focal lengths are correct.

Here is what got me interested into vintage film cameras:

Cool Hunting: Visit The World’s Only TinType Photography Studio [Video] - PSFK