Hi all! Newbie here :D

David Mitchell

David Mitchell

Well-Known Member
Hi everyone,

I am brand new to photography, although I do have a compact digital camera I only use it just to make snapshots and nothing artistic etc. I know a few of my friends spending thousands on high end lenses for various purposes and I am always amazed at the photo that are taken with them, but then think about the cost to get to that stage.

I came across an article a few days ago on a new tech blog, PSFK, and found an interesting article and video on tintype photography aka wet plate and there is a portrait studio doing walk in wet plate photographs

Here is the article:

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

I like the fact that tintype plate photography is more a case that once the photo is taken, thats it, it captures the moment and gives back a single original that can't ever be replicated, its a one off for that exact moment in time with those conditions.

I find that with the digital cameras its a case of not worrying about taking hundreds of photos, some turn out fine, others are discarded. Once a digital photo is taken that you want it can be copied, sent around to everyone, printed out anywhere and modified however you want.

Although this means its a very versatile medium it also means that the subject of whatever was taken is replicated over and over or modified so that it doesn't portray that exact moment the photo was taken.

I have decided to get into some basic film photography, I mean really basic, I am in the process of getting a Kodak Brownie six-20 model C (1946-53) as my first 'proper' film camera.

I am also aware that you are able to convert a box brownie into a wet plate camera which I will do at some point once I get more into it and learn more about photography.

I agree that the camera won't give me an amazing sharp photo that you can blow up to A1 and not have any image issues, but it will have its very own style to it and as said before, the photo can't ever be taken again, it will be a one off.

When I saw the article a few days ago I thought: I bet thats really really expensive to do

Ive found that it isn't that expensive at all, the brownie cameras are very cheap to buy, film seems cheap and when I do move onto wet plate the most expensive part of the process is time, which I am happy to give as it makes each photo that bit more special.

I also like the fact that there is a certain style to film and wet plate - kind of like CD vs Vinyl, sure that CD has a more crisp sound, but vinyl gives a slightly warmer tone and is less clinical.

Anyway, I just thought I would say hi and explain my reasoning, I will (ironically) take photos of my progress as a newbie so that others who also want to get into it will have something to look at and learn from (hopefully)

p.s.

I also found this fun article :D

Vintage Camera Made Out Of Recycled Photography Books - PSFK
 
It Ain't Necessarily So...

David Mitchell said:
I agree that the camera won't give me an amazing sharp photo that you can blow up to A1 and not have any image issues, but it will have its very own style to it and as said before, the photo can't ever be taken again, it will be a one off.
Click to expand...

If I can quote me:

André di Dienes was a fashion and glamour photographer in the mid-20th centur, famous for his nudes. By today's standards, they seem a bit on the prudish side. He had a long term photographic relationship with Marilyn Monroe, and his book of photographs of her is widely considered the definitive work.

In the 1950s, he was invited to be the speaker at the annual banquet of a very exclusive camera club. Membership was restricted to the wealthy and powerful. After a sumptuous meal, he went to the podium and passed around some very large mounted prints he had stashed there. They were glorious - fine grain, rich shadow and highlight tones, with a soft glow around some very nicely developed bodies. Much murmuring of appreciation from the membership as they passed from hand to hand. Not only were they gorgeous images, but the image quality was immaculate.

He asked the membership to analyze the photos and deduce how they were made. Grain was very fine, and the tonality was superb, so the consensus was that they had to be shot on Royal Pan, a film appreciated for its excellence. Since they were large prints, they had to come from large negatives, so were probably shot with a 5×7 view camera, considering the proportions of their height and width. Such a beautiful glow could only come from a classic soft-focus lens - probably a Rodenstock Imagon or Taylor Hobson Cooke.

Once the discussion subsided, di Dienes asked if everyone concurred - and they did. He reached down and placed a paper bag on the podium, dipped into the bag and brought out a roll of film. Verichrome Pan! The same film that went into Aunt Gert’s Kodak when she took it down to the drug store to have the film developed and the camera reloaded. None of the august members would have been caught dead with such a pedestrian film. He once again dipped into the bag and brought out a Kodak box camera just like the one Aunt Gert has, which he picked up at a hock-shop for a quarter.

Verichrome Pan was the pro’s dirty little secret. To work in a non-adjustable box camera, it had to deal with an enormous dynamic range. In a working photographer’s camera, it meant one could capture great shadow detail without blocking highlights. Since box cameras used 120 or 620 film, it also worked in our medium format equipment. We all used it.

The box camera had a simple, uncoated lens - thus flair under all circumstances. Not really noticeable when Aunt Gert picked up her little snapshots a few days later, but very noticeable in a big print. di Dienes was well aware of the shortcomings of camera, but used them as virtues. As the membership sat shocked, he just had proved that it truly is the photographer - not the camera - that makes the photograph.
​
 
Hi David!
Welcome to the forum...
I would expand on what Larry says and say the moment is always the moment ...
That said the medium is important to the photographer ... If you feel that going down the wet plate route is right for you then you really should!
I find a lot of enjoyment in shooting film, I slows me down a great deal and the larger the format the slower I get ... To the point in fact that the large format camera I am currently borrowing had only been used twice (too slow, I'm just quite busy at the mo). I find the happy medium is medium format (120 film) ... Just slow big enough and clunky enough to require me to think more, but small enough to carry...
For other people, digital is all they know and all they love... I've spent hours processing digital files!
If I was so inclined I could process a digital file to the n'th degree, save it as a huge tiff that couldn't be shared on line, have it printed once, then archive the file ... Or delete it ...
Different strokes for different folks is i suppose my point ...
One persons digital image can be as important as someone else's wet plate photo...
 
Thanks for the warm welcome to the forum :D I can tell this is going to be a forum I will want to be active in :)

Larry - thanks for that quote, I guess with digital cameras the more sensors for the light the clearer the image will be digitially, with 'analogue' cameras the medium captures all the light it can in 1 go.

The photographer in your quote would have had a lot of practice though! But I guess with the 'cheaper low end' film (as it was percieved to be) would have needed to stand up to the everyday photographer with little/no skill (eg me) and still get a quality photo, it shows that when in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing the results can be much better than expected as the film can take more abuse and is more forgiving.

Hopefully I can learn and practice as much as I can, I guess in certain hobbies (such as motorsport) if you start out with something that is basic and has all the fundimentals and get good at the basic principles of the hobby, once you apply it to a slightly better model the results are better. Hopefully learning on my model C will be easy - its not like there are many moving parts!

Thanks for the warm welcome :)
 
Very interesting.

Welcome to the forum, David.

It's a great place full of experience & seems full of people wanting to share their knowledge. I've gone the digital route, but have only had my camera 2 or 3 months now & have learned absolutely loads from here. Looking forward to how you progress on to the wet plate. Anybody that prefers vinyl over CD is already a friend of mine.
 
I've not listened to a digital source for ages ...
Although like my photography I have no preference for one or te other I just personal fads
That said, my tt cost me £60, cart £50, I have a clamp and mat that I got for next to nothing ... And Paul Lange gave me a fantastic phono pre ... And with the right vinyl it sounds as good as (although very different to) my £2600 digital source ...
But then my Fuji 645 that cost me £270 is as good as my d3 if any comparison is possible ...
The joy of analogue for me is cost ... It's very good for relativly speaking not very much £££
 
Welcome David. I am very much interested in how you get on with your wet plate activities. It so happens that Gavin, another member of RPF, put up a post this morning or yesterday about a free collodian process workshop on the Isle of Wight. If I'm not mistaken the collodian and the wet plate are one and the same. Anyway, good for you!

I loved Larry's story. I pretty much knew how it was going to end though. I believe there is a perception in the general public that old photo processes produced un-sharp images. But you'd have to go some to make a photo that's sharper than, for example, a daguerrotype, which is one of the oldest photo processes.

By the way, be aware that the Brownie Six Twenty was designed to use 620 format film. (620 per se is not available, but 120 is and its the same size as 620; if your lucky a 120 film might fit in your Brownie, but if not you'd need to wind your 120 film onto the 620 spool for your camera. It's not that big a deal, and I can point you to a link that shows how if you need it. Also I think Hamish has a link. Anyway, sorry if you knew this already,...I just wanted you to be aware before you buy the camera.

(I have several Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash Model cameras--vintage 1951-61 as I recall--that are also designed to use 620 film. However, Kodak made a design error in these such that 120 spools will fit. The Hawkeye Flash Model is cheap and readily available in the US and in my opinion can take a very nice picture. Usually they just require some cleaning. I am not so sure how easy it would be to find one in UK though.)

Good luck, David. And again,...welcome to RPF.
 
Welcome David - you've found the perfect place to try out your first steps into film photography

You'll find some great advice here, and avid viewers of the results :)
 
A vast variety of obsolete film sizes are available from a number of sources. They are packaged by a company

Film for Classics Order Form

and sold through stores like B&H in New York City. They make international trade a breeze—I ordered a Hoya RM72 filter from them just last night, when I could not find one in stock in Canada. They will handle customs and duties at their end, so you don't get ripped off by the delivery company. Prices are fair to good. The only Canadian company that listed the filter (out of stock) had it for $99.95 plus shipping. B&H with shipping and customs was only $80.90. I only use them as a last resort—I buy locally whenever I can. However, they are possibly the most respected photo supplier in the world.
http://www.filmforclassics.com/printable_order_form.htm
 
Its certainly easier to order 620 (or whatever) film from B&H (or whoever) than to roll your own, but the per roll cost and shipping on top of that makes it off putting to me personally. Maybe there's someplace in UK doing the same thing. It would still be expensive, though.
 
Hi David and welcome.

Good call on the tin type photography as this is something I'm looking at getting into myself.
For me I'm looking at both collodian glass plate negatives and tin types but I'll be getting a camera for glass negs and either sourcing (very hard) or making an insert so the glass neg slide can hold thinner tin types. This way you'll have a two way camera.
The work involved to do this with a Brownie wouldn't be worth the hassle so you'd probably be better having a box brownie do each should you wish to experiment with both formats, however if you decide to take up both methods its worth noting now that a glass plate camera can be adapted to take tin types but not the other way around, or at least not easily and in most cases near impossible without major expensive surgery.

I'm saying this from personal research and not experience but I've learnt enough to know exactly what I'm looking to purchase to do both jobs. Having just spent a weekend with people who are doing just this has helped me speak with confidence on the subject so far so I may not have all the answers but I'll be happy to share what I know on the subject.

Welcome.
 
Hi again, my internet has been down for a few days so I havn't been able to log in to respond! Thanks for all the great comments, yeah I looked into respooling the 120 film onto the 620 rolls, need to get myself a dark space somewhere for that though, firstly im going to get my camera and give everything a good clean up and check over.

The camera I have got is the earlier model type C, I have seen that you can fit a 120 film into the 620 cameras on the earlier ones - you just need to a 620 reel to spool it onto and the 120 film fits fine in the loading side and spools onto the 620 rolls when you are using it.

I know Kodak got wise as they knew people were using the cheaper 120 films so the later cameras you couldn't do this trick and they made it so that you had to use 620 film/rolls, I will dig out the tutorial video I found on it later.

I will document what I do, I did see some nice bellows style slide cameras but they are slightly pricey plus the fact that the bellows can degrade and let light in so ive decided to go with an easier to maintain camera, a box with a lens and shutter on one end lol

I will start with film and move onto wet plate after a while due to the extra space/cost/setup of the chemicals and baths needed. I have heard you can easily convert a Brownie 3B camera to wet plate, I need to choose the camera I convert carefully as in I don't want to get a rare/historical camera and mod that, but somthing very very common, partly so I don't ruin any history of the camera and partly the fact that if its common then parts/tips and tricks will be readily available.

It might be the case that I convert this camera to wet plate and get myself a Hawkeye or something - they do look rather cool and have the added extra of having a manual exposure hold button due to the 'flash' it has.

I am getting ahead of myself though, when my first proper camera arrives I will show off what I have and the condition and research into the best way to tidy it up a bit. It shouldn't be too difficult as it all comes apart pretty easy it seems considering you have to take most of it apart to load the film!

I will keep everyone posted on what I do, plan is to go with a tin type wet slide process rather than glass, although I do like the authenticity of glass slides etc the practicality of carrying around glass slides isn't the best which I guess is why they moved onto the tin type slides!

Hopefully the camera will arrive soon :D
 
Hi David, and welcome to RPF - a place I'm sure you'll enjoy. And what a great project to start with! I'm looking forward to seeing the progress. Like several others here I also shoot film (as well as digital) and like large format in particular. As you may have noticed I built recently a LF camera shooting paper negatives and have been toying the idea of making a holder for wet-plate collodion for it. So I"m especially interested to see how you get on with your project.

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...format-paper-negative-diy-camera-project.html
 
I do like your 'fine focus mark II' setup :D looks really smart :) and you got some good results :D

Here are some of the ideas/projects I am thinking about plus some cameras I might get:

Kodak Brownie Six-20 model C - keeping as OEM film, might mod, will check condition with normal 120 film
Fold out camera - this might be ideal for a wet plate setup as I know some are plate cameras anyway (more expensive outlay though)
Kodak Hawkeye 'flash' model - cause it looks awesome :D
Possible project - 35mm brownie - run the standard spools but use easily available film
Possible project - lens mods on fixed lens camera

btw, update on running 120 film in the 620 camera - it seems that if you clip away some of the plastic reel it will fit fine into the camera (although need to check) the good think about the Six-20 is that its apparently got a spring for tension to hold the reel will allow it to take up the size difference - plan is to run a 120 film on one side and a 620 empty reel on the other (so that the winding handle fits ok into the lug holes on the reel to advance).
 
btw, update on running 120 film in the 620 camera - it seems that if you clip away some of the plastic reel it will fit fine into the camera (although need to check) the good think about the Six-20 is that its apparently got a spring for tension to hold the reel will allow it to take up the size difference - plan is to run a 120 film on one side and a 620 empty reel on the other (so that the winding handle fits ok into the lug holes on the reel to advance).
Click to expand...
That is a good idea and it may work. It didn't for me, though. I tried it on one of my old Kodak folders designed for 620 and although trimming the diameter at the ends of the spool let the spool fit into the film delivery cavity, the actual bulk of the film prevented the door from closing. I think it was because a 120 spool has a thicker core than a 620 spool, thus a full roll of film wound onto a 120 spool will have a greater thickness than the same film rolled onto a smaller diameter 620 spool. (Felt like I was back doing technical writing again trying to put that sentance together. Hope it made sense.)
 
Brian Moore said:
That is a good idea and it may work. It didn't for me, though. I tried it on one of my old Kodak folders designed for 620 and although trimming the diameter at the ends of the spool let the spool fit into the film delivery cavity, the actual bulk of the film prevented the door from closing. I think it was because a 120 spool has a thicker core than a 620 spool, thus a full roll of film wound onto a 120 spool will have a greater thickness than the same film rolled onto a smaller diameter 620 spool. (Felt like I was back doing technical writing again trying to put that sentance together. Hope it made sense.)
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah I read that with some cameras the only way to be able to do it is respool onto a 620 reel, the reason why they went to a 620 film is that it allowed the bodies of the cameras to be more compact, so certain cameras were built to the limits of the 620 reels to get the smallest possible camera. The reason why I bought an earlier Six-20 camera is the fact that I know the earlier the 620 model, the more likely it is to be able to fit the 120 film lol im not too fussed about the size, its not like I need a bag of lenses with it!

Pete Askew said:
One of these would work as a folder or maybe an MPP.

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/film-conventional-cameras/4140-1947-speed-graphic.html
Click to expand...

That looks amazing! I would love something like that maybe in the future, although probably more suited to a studio environment.

I was thinking about a slightly more compact folding camera though:

Baldafix_folding_camera.jpg


How about a hybrid, Canon 5D with a folding lens:

1920s folding camera + Canon 5D = awesome | Crave - CNET

Hopefully the Six-20 camera will arrive today, I have had an idea on how to convert it to wet plate in a reversable manner (ie no cutting of any of the OEM material, I will try and make a card mock up over the weekend and test the fit before I try and make it out of metal. I will be using film initially though until I get used to the camera and have given everything a clean up and maybe a repaint internally plus cleaning and oiling of the moving parts and checking the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paul Taylor
Hello from Phoenix
Replies
7
Views
187
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Maria Victoria
Newbie here
Replies
4
Views
282
Rob MacKillop
Rob MacKillop
Martin Scharnke
G'day from Brisbane, Australia
Replies
3
Views
158
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Stefan Wilde
New to this forum
Replies
14
Views
403
Stefan Wilde
Stefan Wilde
P
Hello from Sunny Florida
Replies
6
Views
219
Gary R. Smith
Gary R. Smith
Back
Top