Like Something Dan Would Do,...

[Brian Moore]

Cattermole that is,...when he was a kid just learning to write on camera with light.

While testing my Kodak Vigilant 620 a few days ago I came across this fellow sitting on a bench playing a mandolin. He was good! He asked me about the camera--as I hoped he would because I wanted to know more about him and, more to the point, take his picture. (A pre-WWII camera can be a good ice breaker.)

He introduced himself as ****. "**** Deluxe,...look me up on the web!"

So I did,...and there he was. He plays gigs locally. Usually guitar, although mandolin upon occasion.

I spent a pleasant few minutes with **** Deluxe as he practiced his mandolin music and we talked about music and old cameras. We were chums for a little while. Finally I asked **** if I could take his picture and he graciously consented. Alas, the camera wasn't up to the challenge, as you can see.

As its name suggests, the Vigilant 620 was designed to take 620 film. However, 620 is the same size as 120, it's just on a smaller diameter spool. So I took some 120 into the changing bag and wound it on to a 620 spool. It all went remarkably smoothly. (Until I developed the images.)

I processed the roll (Arista EDU Ultra 100 from Freestyle--which is actually Fomapan) for 7 minutes in Rodinal (R09 One Shot) diluted 1:50.

I serve this image up merely as a curiosity for those of you who work in the digital dark room as opposed to being under the dark cloth.

Note: The asterisks above were not placed there by me. The system censored me automatically. The asterisks obscure the diminutive of "Richard".

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Great story dude,
I'll check this guy out. And great effect, it sort of makes me look at it for a long time to try and work it out.
But very interesting effect!

 

[Dan Cattermole]

I'm still a kid Brian!!!

 

[Pete Askew]

Well, an interesting effect as you say. wonder if they are pressure marks created when you re-spooled the film or maybe you didn't get the backing tight against the film when you wound it back on. Dd you wind it onto a take-up spool and then back off onto the smaller feed spool?

 

[Brian Moore]

I'm still a kid Brian!!!

Sorry about that, Dan!

pressure marks created when you re-spooled the film

I was gentle, Pete. And it all went smoothly.

or maybe you didn't get the backing tight against the film

That's possible, I suppose.

Dd you wind it onto a take-up spool and then back off onto the smaller feed spool?

Not sure I understand this question Pete. I took the film off a normal size 120 feed spool and put it on a 620 feed spool, which is smaller in diameter. Then after each frame the film was wound onto a 620 take up spool. The squigly lights don't appear in all frames, by the way. Two of the eight show no crazy squiggles, although there are portions of each of those frames where light has leaked in.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Crazy effect Brian - can't believe the forum software is such a **** about ****!

What happens when Darren B posts a great food shot of some spotted ****?

 

[Pete Askew]

A spotted male chicken? Do they taste different then?

 

[adrian jordin]

Once upon a time this kind of effect would have been considered evidence of ghosts and spirits......

 

[Dan Cattermole]

A spotted male chicken? Do they taste different then?

Lol, should try it sometime pete, cockerels eggs are great too, and not to mention deep fried lush chicken lips.... Mmmh mmh mmmmhhh!!

 

[Pete Askew]

Sorry about that, Dan! Not sure I understand this question Pete. I took the film off a normal size 120 feed spool and put it on a 620 feed spool, which is smaller in diameter. Then after each frame the film was wound onto a 620 take up spool. The squigly lights don't appear in all frames, by the way. Two of the eight show no crazy squiggles, although there are portions of each of those frames where light has leaked in.

I was wondering if you'd lost tension during the re-spooling. Did you just wind from one spool to the next and put it in the camera last frame first or pull the whole lot off and then re-spool or go via an intermediate spool (I think the answer is not to that one)?

 

[Brian Moore]

Did you just wind from one spool to the next and put it in the camera last frame first or pull the whole lot off and then re-spool

I pulled the whole lot off and then re-spooled. Do you think that did it, Pete? (A couple of the frames had really crazy squirliness! Maybe I'll post them later tonight.)

 

[Kev Pugh]

It may be Brian, When I have respooled so that I could use an old 620 Brownie Folder I spooled onto a second holder then rewound back onto the 620 spool that way you can keep the film tight and there is less chance of getting any bends/folds/creases in it, I did this in the changing bag so there isn't much room to have a roll of unspooled film flapping around.

 

[Pete Askew]

That's what I'd do too. These could be marks from static electricity either from film to film, film to backing or film / backing to bag if there are no pressure marks on the film. The safer way would be to wind the film slowly onto a spare spool (12o is fine) and then re-wind it onto the correct sized spool.

 

[Brian Moore]

Ok,...so Pete and Kev,...what you are saying is that instead of removing the film from the 120 spool then winding it onto its 620 counterpart, I should wind the leading portion of the film onto another spool--let's just say a 120--then when the film is fully removed from the original 120 spool and now firmly wound onto the 2nd 120 spool, I should then take the trailing end of the film and wind it onto the 620 spool.

Is that it?

Thanks.

 

[Kev Pugh]

Yep thats the way..

 

[Brian Moore]

OK,...thanks Kev.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Perhaps a shame it didnt come out properly ... but i think its a great shot in its own right!
and chris thinks he has light leak problems with his connonet......

 

[Brian Moore]

Thanks Hamish. (It's a pretty spectacular light show ain't it?)