View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:06 am Post subject: Kodak Pony 828 with 35mm Film |
|
|
David wrote:
I picked up a Kodak Pony 828 with an undeveloped roll, the paper, and a second spool a weeks back. Last week I tested it with 35mm film specifically to capture the sprocket holes in the image. Why? Fun. The images aren't good by any stretch, but this was just a test-run, proof-of-concept.
1
2
3
Pretty mucky weather last week compounded by my scanner having difficulty properly setting contrast due to the frame extending beyond the image. But some Photoshop work restored SOME of the contrast evident on the negatives. With the right subject, this could be a technique with some possibility. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Katastrofo
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 10405 Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Katastrofo wrote:
That is so cool. My first real cameras were this one and the Kodak Bantam 828 4.5 (1938).
They were given to me when I was 13 (1963) and back then of course film was still available
albeit probably expired. No sprocket holes and you could use a 35mm enlarger for prints.
Could you post a pic of the camera?
here's the Bantam:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Bantam
Interesting results, congrats! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
I can do better -- here's the Camerapedia article:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Pony_828/135
The pony, like the Bantam I think, came in both 828 and 135. Since the films are the same width, it was an easy conversion for Kodak. Actually, Kodak made unperforated 35mm film until a few years ago for microfilm and some NOS is still available (but ridiculously priced -- upwards of $350 for 100 feet.) And then the problem with that is I only have one camera that can take it and I just don't see myself using the Pony on a daily basis. So, the perf film works well, but is tricky. First, I take a bulk loader and notch the last sprocket that's in the light. Then, in the dark, I know where to chop the film.
Then, in the dark, I cut a fresh end in the film and pull out a length equal to the film that came with the camera. Once cut, I re-wrap the perf film onto the 828 paper backing and the spool. Tape it on and it's ready to go. A bit of a pain, but easier than re-spooling 620 or putting ShangHai film in non-silly paper backs.
The 828 has another decided weakness compared to the 135: only eight exposures per roll. But it takes 24mmX40mm frames instead of 24mmX35mm like the 135 Pony model does.
The 828 has a green window with no cover to peer through as one winds the film. I was expecting fogged film but that didn't happen. So, kudos to Kodak and next time maybe the subjects will be more interesting.
The Pony was 828 film's swansong in the U.S. and preceded, but four years, the end of 828 cameras in Europe, too. I'm not sure how old my copy is, but it has a lens that looks like the 135 copy's lens (the 828s I've seen pictured have a slightly shorter lens.) So that could indicate mine was made during the 135 model production run, which ended in 1954. But that's just conjecture.
That said, fun results and totally worth trying for anyone with an 828 camera. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Katastrofo
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 10405 Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Katastrofo wrote:
I'm going back decades trying to remember the Pony...I think you had to turn the lens 1/4 turn (left?) then pull out
from the body, right? Had a lot of fun with both of them, till film became harder to find. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
Yup. But I didn't know, until you posted that, that the Pony's lens moved. So, I guess it is just like all the other 828s and 135s. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Katastrofo
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 10405 Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Katastrofo wrote:
I always liked the looks of the Bantam Special, but respooling film seemed like such a headache.
I didn't get on well trying to re-spool 620, either. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Those shots look fine to me David.
I happen to have an unopened roll of 828 film, if you need it, you can have it.
You should keep an eye on ebay, unperf 35mm does show up at good prices. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|