An Almost Complete Guide to Restoring a 1920s Kodak Autographic 3A Special.
Richard (Dick) Wilkins
June 2024
Converting an old Kodak 3A Autographic camera to 120 film is a fun project. With care, superb panoramas can be created. Not an everyday camera but pull it out occasionally when you want a challenge and to do something different.
(A short video accompanies this post at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvAfQryEIyA )
Sometimes, the only way to get something out of one’s system is to buy it. The first of these, some fifty years ago, was an early Land Rover, the legendary British version of a Jeep. For ten years, it transported my family of six virtually anywhere, was basically indestructible but terribly uncomfortable and devoid of safety features. After 10 years, my system was cured, and I moved on to more conventional vehicles.
Figure 1. Often the only way to get something out of one’s system is to get it, whether it is a 1960s Land Rover or a 1920 Kodak Camera
Vintage cameras are much the same. One reads of the fascinating and unique features of one or the other and must try it out. Invariably, this means buying one and doting it with tender loving care. The one that caught my eye a few years ago was the Kodak Autographic 3A Special. Not so much because of the camera, but more of the photographs taken in the 1920s of logging activities in a timber camp behind Thames, New Zealand by Tudor Collins who had been advised to get a decent camera and a tripod. The photos have become iconic.
Figure 2. Tudor Collins used a 3A Special to document logging in New Zealand in the 1920s.
The 3A Special was relatively expensive and, although in 1920 a basic model was advertised in a little town like Thames, they were not all that common in New Zealand. Depending on the lens combination, they could cost £20 to £27 (approximately US$80 to 100) and few amateurs would buy them. The camera was described as a “Pocket Camera”, but this was a misnomer, it was big, giving very large negatives (31/4 x 51/2 inches) with a roll of 122 film that came in two sizes, giving either 6 or 10 images. Such images could be contact printed at postcard size, an enormous advantage in the 1920s. Other cameras, such as the 3A could also do this but the advantage of the 3A Special was that it incorporated a coupled rangefinder that enabled exact focus from 6 to 100 ft (effectively infinity). This innovation enabled Tudor Collins to take, what in the 1920s were adjudged high quality, photographs under demanding conditions.
One does wonder in retrospect if the 3A Special was aimed at two consumer groups. First, the well-heeled amateur who wanted to take superior handheld “Snapshots” with a “Pocket Camera”. Second, professional photographers who would make full use of the features of the camera, using careful focusing with the rangefinder, a tripod, small f-stops etc. and, for high-quality results, the ancillary backs that could take plates or cut film. Certainly, the Instruction Manual of the time emphasizes “snapshots” and has many illustrations of handheld use which would limit the quality of images especially if, as is discussed later, flatness issues with roll film affected that achievable at wide apertures.
Figure 3. The basic Kodak 3A Autographic Special was widely advertised in New Zealand in the early 1920s but it is uncertain how many were sold. By 1930, they were out of fashion and sold cheaply second hand. Smaller, more convenient, high-quality cameras such as the Graflex replaced them, plus enlargers obliviated the need for contact printing.
So, how does one go about getting a 3A Special today? The obvious place is eBay and the price for one that looks reasonable is well over $US300 delivered to New Zealand. One must hope such a buy has an intact bellows, working shutter and good glass. Some do not. In NZ, the basic 3A non-Autographic model occasionally comes up - one I inspected with an asking price of $US100 had a bellows riddled with holes, another, 1902 model, supposedly in pristine condition, has a ridiculous asking price of $US500 and another, that looked quite good, from a dealer, had a price tag of $US110 - a good deal, but I wanted the 3A Special. Then a couple of months ago, an acquaintance disposing of a large estate put one on the NZ auction site which, although in terrible cosmetic conditions, was mine for $US25. How could one go wrong? It turns out, in money terms not very, but in hours put in restoring, quite a lot!
Condition of Camera on Arrival.
Cosmetically, the most obvious issue was the almost complete disintegration of the leather covering on the back of the camera - one panel on the front of the camera also had leather in an advanced state of decay. The leather strap was rotten and fell apart, and the leather carrying case, though intact, was questionable (though now it has dried out it may be salvageable). Clearly, at some stage the camera had been stored in damp conditions. The camera case was embossed “Kodak Australia” and it probably was acquired by a New Zealand collector in the 1980s. The two original 122 wooden reels would suggest that it had not been used since the 1940s. There was general corrosion on the metal rails etc. of the camera focusing system, but this did not overly affect its operation. Although the seller could not work the shutter, this freed up after a bit of jiggling and appeared to work at all speeds. The only mirror on the camera that was beyond repair was that one on the far end of the rangefinder. No obvious pinholes were seen in the bellows.
Thus, I concluded that the camera, as it arrived, was basically functional but needed a lot of cleaning and lubrication. The cosmetic state would also be an ongoing issue as powdery bits of leather kept flaking off and, also, in that condition made it uncomfortable to hold.
So, the plan of attack was to first replace the decayed leather with leatherette, then clean and check the optics of both the lens system and the rangefinder and, finally, convert the roll film from the original 122 to 120.
Replacing the Damaged Leather with Leatherette.
Though small areas of similar damage can be seen on some Kodak cameras advertised on eBay, none were remotely as bad as this one. Apparently, leather can decay faster than leatherette under damp conditions because tanning residues react with the aluminum and the subsequent corrosion lifts and destroys the leather. Fine carborundum paper (400 grit) was used to sand off the corrosion and flakes of leather (the half-finished back is shown in the figure). One panel in the front had a combination of the same problem over the aluminum part, plus adhered but rotten leather over the wooden part. Again, this was removed by sanding.
Figure 4. The back of the camera was covered in fragments of decayed leather and underlying corrosion (right hand side of the top left panel) which could only be removed by sanding and scraping. Self-adhesive leatherette was cut out using a tracing paper template and applied. One panel at the front had decaying leather over the wood and fragments as on the back over the aluminum portion. Again, sanding removed this and a tracing paper templated used to cut out a leatherette replacement.
Replacing the covering was a little challenging. The aim was for an adequate but not perfect finish, so the hinge region of the autographic cover and underlying leather was left intact, otherwise several rivets would need to be removed and replaced. A template was made with tracing paper cut out around this region. Fortunately, the area around the window lifts, so the leatherette will slide underneath it. Another tracing paper template was made for the front panel.
Inexpensive self-adhesive leatherette (“car patch repair”) was cut out and slid into place while lubricated with dilute saliva and allowed to dry. Minor trimming resulted in a quite acceptable finish. The original leather (Moroccan??) the other parts of the camera was in reasonable condition and left well alone.
Note, the tinted film viewing window has been removed and the leatherette covers the hole (with cardboard support below it). More about that later.
Although Kodak tout this as one of their superior cameras, there are a couple of cheap features to be aware of. One is the two clips that hold the camera back in place. When new, these would be very convenient, allowing the back to be simply pushed in and clicked shut - just as convenient, the back opens when they are squeezed together. Unfortunately, they are made of flimsy sheet metal and with heavy use the catches wear and the back tends to pop off. A bit of judicious filing made the catches more secure but a modification with more secure clips is really needed. Additionally, one must be careful that a large tripod plate does not push against a clip.
The Optical System.
Close inspection showed that each lens element of the Bausch and Lomb Anastigmat Lens (f6.3 170mm) was in good condition, as were the shutter and diaphragm blades. The front two elements can be screwed out by hand and separated with a lens spanner and the back element removed in a similar way. After cleaning, all the glass came up well - very few minor blemishes and I would give the system 9/10. This is a mid-range lens and some cameras had an inferior, and others a superior lens, at least on paper.
The Kodamatic Shutter with a simple spring action worked well at all speeds from 1/2 to 1/150sec and on T and B. A screw in cable release also worked smoothly. Clearly, the problems the seller had working the shutter were purely due to lack of use over 50 plus years and just a little coaxing was required to free everything up.
This camera dated from around 1920 but a bewildering variety of lenses, bellows, shutters, and release methods are found on different 3A cameras - too many to discuss here. The lens on this camera was mid-range but with a camera of this age, performance is more dependent on the condition and production vagaries associated with each lens as much as on theoretical specifications.
The rangefinder is a quite novel design. At first, I thought there would be a “slave” mirror that rotated as the lens bed moved but this is not the case. All mirrors are fixed and a long rectangular piece of glass, which I initially thought unimportant, is the crucial element in focusing the image from the far mirror. It is actually a lens, shaped somewhat like long prism, and as the lens board moves further out to focus on close objects, the thicker part of the “prism” comes into play and actually bends the light path coming from close objects after it leaves the far mirror so it is rendered parallel to that from the near mirror, i.e. when viewed through split viewfinder, the object can be brought into focus. Obviously, the crucial part of the rangefinder is this peculiar lens which is virtually irreplaceable - Kodak have engineered it exactly for the lens in the camera.
Figure 5. Schematic of the Rangefinder System in the camera.
Disassembling the mirror boxes and cleaning all the surfaces made a dramatic improvement in the brightness of the rangefinder (there are 8 surfaces in the far beam path). However, the main problem was the condition of the far mirror; it is back surfaced but severe corrosion rendered the mirror beyond resurrection, and it needed replacement.
This proved problematic and I still do not have the final solution. This mirror assembly was removed by first unscrewing the protective cover and then the three adjusting screws which hold a plate to which the mirror is glued. Prising the mirror off the metal support, left behind problematic corrosion and glue residue on both. Replacing the glass which was only 1.2mm thick was the only option.
Figure 6. The adjustable mirror was very badly damaged. It was glued to a metal support that has a half ball on the back which can rotate in a socket in the mirror housing. Three screws attach to this through the back housing and can be adjusted both to set the focus and centre the image.
I could not source mirror glass this thin so resorted to obtaining some 1.2mm watch glass from AliExpress and coating it with Rust-oleum “Mirror Effect”. Although this gave a good mirror surface, it was sensitive to glues, and I could only attach it to the metal support with double side tape. Nevertheless, I managed to slide this into place and adjusted the assembly with the three screws which rotated on a half ball so it focuses on infinity at one end of the scale and 6ft at the other end. (I had previously also checked that the scale on the lens board was accurate - it would appear that distances are taken from the front of the lens (see later Figure 12).
Adapting to 120 Roll Film.
If 122 Roll Film became available, no further work on the camera would be required (other than restoring the frame viewing window). Alas, this is not the case, and one must adapt it to 120 roll film.
The first step is to purchase (or make) sets of 122 to 120 film adapters. An almost ubiquitous set of adapters, which appear identical, are readily available from any one of about 20 sellers on eBay. I immediately ran into a problem with these as they were a couple of mms too thick to fit inside my Kodak 3A. As I did not have a lathe, I had to laboriously grind down the ends with coarse sandpaper. This did not give a perfectly flat finish, but it sufficed. Possibly, other adapters would fit or, alternatively, they could be 3D printed using online instructions.
Figure 7. A 120 film reel with adapters next to an original 122 reel. Note the wide ends of the adapters are similar in width to that of the 122 endplates. (Some adapters are not full width). A cardboard spacer has been added to give the adapter assembly similar tension to that exerted on the 122 reel.
One point worth noting is that 122 film was originally tensioned by a spring in one side of the camera running against the outer ~5mm of the donor reel for about 1/3rd of its circumference. If you have an old 122 reel you can see how the reel is a tight fit and just one side is tensioned. Turning this reel gives a good sense of how much resistance there should be in a 120 reel plus adapters. Some advertised adapters do not have the same outside diameter as 122 reels and proper tension may be hard to achieve.
The camera is now ready to take photos, but results may be subpar because the film has no guide rails or pressure plate, and the film image may be degraded by a large amount of stray light entering the camera.
The simplest way to form a film guide is to use strips of 0.254mm brass sheet on top of the frame box to close it down to the width of 120 film and solder further strips of brass underneath them to sit flush with the frame box and guide the film. I made these slightly wider than need be, so the image was only 52mm wide. The underneath surface was painted black and then the guides taped in place with duct tape. (Some people glue or screw them, but I wanted to be able to easily restore the camera to take 122 films if I ever got some!)
Figure 8. Brass 120 film guides in place. It is quite difficult to keep the brass plate perfectly flat while cutting it.
The pressure plate design can be approached in different ways (or not at all). I settled for a piece of black cardboard 1.5mm thick, 83mm wide that sat between, and was duct taped, to the long springs that originally held 122 film against the frame box. Interestingly, the 122 film was not backed by a pressure plate. Another feature of these springs is that while they extend over the donor roller they stop 1.5 cm short of the recipient roller (so as not to interfere with the autographic step?). I initially made the backing cardboard the full length of the long springs but this was a mistake for two reasons; first it pushed film very hard onto the roller (see impression in Figure 9) and second, this meant the film was not hard against the frame box at this end and slightly out of focus (see later). Therefore, I cut the backing cardboard back as indicated in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Cardboard pressure plate. Note the black sealant covering all the autograph window except for a small clear area in the centre. Initially, the pressure plate was made the length of the longitudinal side springs but this meant it pressed against the roller on the left (note impression) and was raised from the frame box. Shortening it as indicated down by ~1.5cm kept it within the frame box so the film was flat as on the right-hand side.
The only thing remaining to do is to work out a system of advancing the film to give 5 spaced images (take no notice of at least one film supplier who says you can get 6 images - you can’t!). The reason 122 film will give six images is that it is a few cm longer than 120 film - it also came in a longer 10 exposure roll version.
Figure 10. Photo taken from the Internet showing 122 film at frame “6” in a Kodak 3A camera. It is relevant to note that these cameras have no pressure plate and the film is simply pushed against the frame box by two long spring strips fixed to the inside edges of the lid.
While there are complicated methods to advance 120 film using so many turns for the first, second, third etc frame, the following method is absolutely fool proof, at least for Ilford films. Other films may need the method to be tweaked.
The trick is to make use of the autographic window. Tape it up completely, leaving just a little window in the middle which is best covered with mylar or some other transparent plastic. I also used black sealant inside the slot to ensure it was light tight. It is no advantage to use an orange or red tinted window as modern film is panchromatic and, in any case, a clear window makes reading the backing paper much clearer.
Figure 11. A clear window is made in the centre of the autoradiograph slot and the rest blocked off. Additionally, the cam is taken out of the hinge so that the whole surround does not press on the film when the cover is opened.
Using this approach, there is one further thing to do. Remove the small cam in the hinge (the pin comes out easily) so the autograph window does not press down tight on the film when the lid is raised. This might cause problems when advancing the film with the window open; certainly, it would if the pressure plate was extended past the window.
Now film can be simply loaded and advanced. Initially, only roll the film on far enough so it engages and the broad arrow across the backing paper is about one-third of the way along the frame (too far and film may be exposed). After closing the back, advance the film to the initial arrows, then about another cm. Expose the first frame, then advance to “3” for the second frame. The next frame needs a little more care because one advances to “5” then on to the first small “star” that indicates one is approaching “6”. The next frame is reached by simply advancing the film to “8” and the last frame by advancing the film beyond “10” to the next little “star” that precedes “11”.
After a few films, this method becomes second nature.
Figure 12. An exposed 120 film showing the spacing achieved by winding the film to the positions indicated by arrows (These are the markings on the centre of the backing paper, not the film itself.) This is an Ilford film – it is possible that other brands may have different markings.
First Films.
Initially, a very simple experiment was done to both check the accuracy of the closest focus mark of 6ft on the scale and to ensure there were not any light leaks that I had missed.
All was good regarding light leaks. There were none. The bellows was in surprisingly good conditions. Kodak used different materials at different times and many bellows developed pinholes. This camera appeared to have a tough fibre (?) sandwiched between layers of thin black cloth like material. I know it was tough because I inadvertently poked a sharp tool onto it. It scraped up a small piece of the black outer layer, fortunately not in a fold, but did not damage the underlying bellows. A bit of rubber glue and black nail polish made for an invisible repair.
With the lens wide open at f6.3 and the lens set to 6ft, the sharpest focus on my test object was actually measured to be 6ft 2in. Possibly, the scale or my new film guide was slightly out but I did not feel any minor adjustments were warranted. Infinity (100ft) was also perfectly OK.
Figure 13. Test of accuracy of focus scale. At 6ft from the front of the lens set wide open on f6.3, it was found to be only 2 inches in error and not considered worth adjusting. A slight falling off in resolution was seen in the outer parts of the images. Several longitudinal scratches were evident. (At this stage, neither the rollers nor film box had been polished.)
The rangefinder, with the mirror properly seated, also gave very close focus agreements with these distances (and 10, 15 ft, infinity etc). The main problem with the rangefinder is seating the mirror more firmly on the support is required so it does not come loose. A work in progress.
Film Scratches
Scratches were a problem that was noticed on the test film. Some of these were long and it appeared that spots of corrosion on the film gate were causing them. Also, when a test roll of old film was put through, it was clear that the rollers were not freely turning. One was slightly bent but when the spindle beds were examined a second poor quality issue became apparent. Spindles were pressed into the hollow steel rollers from which thin pins simply rotated in holes bored into the wooden frame. One hole was worn but there was no way to remove the rollers or repair the hole without cutting a piece of wood out and replacing it - not an enviable task. A little Teflon lubricant was placed in the spindle “bushes” and I managed to straighten the bent roller in situ.
Then I made the terrible mistake of using Brasso to polish both the rollers and film frame.
Everything looked polished to the eye and touch, and the corrosion was gone, but several films I ran through had a variety of scratches on them, some long, some short. The culprit turned out to be the Brasso. It is far too harsh on aluminum and a magnifier showed there were actually bad shallow scratches on the frame (the rollers, being steel, survived this abuse somewhat better).
Fortunately, it was possible to reverse this mistake with carborundum paper. First 800 grade was used to remove the worst of the scratches, then 2000 grade was applied with a reasonable amount of pressure to both the frame and the rollers. The rollers did not need more attention, but the frame still had evidence of the Brasso scratches; these were probably inconsequential as the surface was smooth, but just to ensure this was not a problem, a layer of black nail polish was applied. That seemed to largely solve the scratch problem. Probably the Brasso created little ridges that directly scratched the film and also dislodged emulsion that did more damage.
The take home lesson is that, while Brasso is perfect for polishing corroded steel shutter blades, it is bad news for soft aluminium. Possibly slightly rough surfaces did not damage the original 122 film because it was not pressed tight against the frame box by a pressure plate.
Performance in the Field
Overall, this camera was capable of creating very high-quality images, but it was immediately apparent that, to achieve this, care was required.
Kodak 3A cameras in the 1920s
Before describing my experience with 120 film it is worth considering how the camera would perform with the 122 film available in 1920. The first thing to note is that according to the markings below the lens housing, the recommended exposure times at f16 were 1/10 to 1/25th of a second depending on whether the conditions were, respectively, “Clear” or “Brilliant,” so the ASA rating of the film would be somewhat less than 50. Given that the focal length of the lens is 170mm, i.e. getting towards mid-telephoto, one would not want hand-held exposure times of much less than 1/100th of second so f8 would be about the minimum aperture that would give acceptable results.
The second point to note is that 122 film is not held flat by a pressure plate. It is simply pressed down against the frame box on either side by long springs (Figure 10). Perhaps the roll film of 1920 was stiffer and would not bow in the middle. Potentially adding to the flatness issue, just outside each frame, it is pressed against the rollers which are slightly proud of the frame box.
All these factors suggest that hand-held with the lens almost wide open, the camera would not give the highest quality images. Of course, these limitations are somewhat negated by the fact that the images were large and would give quite adequate postcard size prints.
The way around this limitation in 1920 was to use the glass plate attachment. Presumably, most photos taken in this way were with a tripod and focusing on a screen (though some cameras had a flip up scale calibrated for plates).
Kodak 3A cameras in 2024 adapted for 120 film.
The most obvious advantage 100 years on is that faster films such as Ilford HP4Plus makes it possible to close the lens down to f22 or even less and take hand-held photos in sunny conditions at 1/100th sec.
The most obvious disadvantage is that the images are fairly extreme panoramic (52 x 140mm in my camera) and one has to be very careful to both line up horizons and also delineate this area in the viewfinder which is for a 122 image (82 x 140mm). Simple ink lines suffice on the viewfinder for this, but aligning the horizon is more of a problem, and if one is not careful the image is ruined (only very minor cropping, rotation etc. is possible and an image such as in Figure 14 cannot be cropped).
Figure 14 The horizon is badly out of kilter. (HP5Plus f16, 1/100 sec)
Oddly, vertical shots seemed much easier to align, possibly because the camera felt more comfortable in this position. Regardless of position, the shutter was easy to release by hand.
Figure 15. Camera held against support. Vertical alignment is good but flare from sun behind light cloud is obvious. (HP5Plus f16, 1/100 sec)
If the camera is held on a horizontal surface, high quality photos were possible without a tripod or cable release (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Camera held against a horizontal wall. (HP5Plus f16, 1/100 sec)
An obvious problem is that the lens is prone to flare (see Figure 15). This is partly because the lens is uncoated. A major improvement would be given by a lens hood but mounting one is complicated by the fact that the timing dial is very close to the top of the lens housing (see Figure 1). A possible solution would be to use a Zeiss A32 lens hood with the top notched out slightly. This would undoubtedly decrease flare and increase the contrast of the lens.
Several other photos were taken with the camera hand-held without support and quite acceptable results were obtained at f11 or f16 at 1/100th of a second. These images would still give acceptable prints if scanned at a higher resolution when enlarged to about 22 x 60 cm (Figure 17 scans are low quality with iPhone)
Figure 17. Camera hand-held. (HP5Plus f11, 1/100 sec)
Tripod and Cable Release
Initial photos on a tripod were to test the lens wide open (f6.3) at short object distances. A tape measure was used in Figure 18(a) to accurately measure the distance to the eye (6ft) while the rangefinder was used in (b) to focus on all of Tauihu. In (c) a tape was used to set the rump of Huikai at 10 ft. In all cases, a level was used to accurately set the camera horizontal or vertical.
Figure 18. For (a) the image in the full viewfinder encompassed the whole head while for (b) the “panorama” lines added to the viewfinder enabled an almost exact line up of the whole of Tauihu. For (c), the lens rise was set to maximum to cope with the perspective issue (Huikai is approximately 10 ft high). (PanFPlus f6.3, 1/150 sec)
The results were impressive given the depth of field at 6ft for a 170mm lens wide open at f6.3 is less than 2in or, alternatively, 5in depending whether one settles on a circle of confusion of 0.03mm or 0.1 mm which is quoted for 35mm and 4x5 film, respectively. At 10ft the respective DOFs are 5in and 13in.
Next, the lens was tested closed down to f32. Probably the lens performance degenerates past this point, but it is possible to close it to f45. At f32 with the lens scale set on the maximum distance of “100ft” the DOF should be 50ft or 23ft to infinity depending on whether one uses 35mm or 4x5 film as the criteria.
Figure 19. Photo taken at f32 “100ft” on scale and 1/50th sec. This could easily yield a print 1m wide. The image is sharp except for the extreme right-hand edge where the pressure plate presses against the roller, not the film box. (HP5Plus f32, 1/50 sec)
The next two photos were taken using the rangefinder to set the focus which can be seen to be accurate.
Figure 20. There is possibly a little perspective distortion in this image taken from about 40 feet. (HP5Plus f32, 1/50 sec)
Figure 21 The viewfinder was difficult to use in this photo as the camera had light shining from above, but the foliage was dark. The rangefinder was also difficult to use as there were few definitive split lines at 12 feet. (HP5Plus f32, 1/25 sec)
Conclusions
I was pleasantly surprised by the high quality of the images produced by this camera. Very acceptable images could be produced with the camera handheld, or on minimal support, using a fast film (Ilford HP5Plus, ASA400) at f8 to f16 and a shutter speed of 1/100sec. Superb images were obtained at f32 with a tripod and careful levelling. Moreover, a finer grain film such as Ilford FP4Plus (ASA 125) would undoubtedly render even higher resolution. Flare issues could be largely eliminated by using a lens hood.
The forte for this camera with 120 film is horizontal landscapes or close-up “nature” photos (e.g. Figures 19,20 & 21). Vertical composition is more challenging but quite satisfying once one gets used to visualizing the possibilities (e.g. Figure 15). People are not easily put in a panorama unless they are part of a long vista and action shots would be very difficult unless the camera could be kept horizontal.
The quality of the lens for colour photography remains to be determined, but at only 5 images per roll experimentation would be costly.
Will I use this camera?
The honest answer is “occasionally”. Conventional 120 cameras are far more convenient, give 8, 10 or 12 high quality images with more flexible image sizes and probably only if I wanted a high-quality panorama would this camera be the top choice.
The things that remain to be improved are the fine polishing of the rollers and frame box to eliminate scratches completely, ensuring the two back clips are secure and, lastly, firmly fixing the loose rangefinder mirror. Actually, the rangefinder attachment is not as useful as I thought it would be and at f32 it serves no purpose for landscapes; for close-up work out to about 12ft, a tape measure is more convenient.
As a final thought, if 122 film became available again, or if I could acquire a big stash of the film that had been stored frozen, I would certainly convert the camera back to 122 format. The camera would give superb full-size images that would rival those obtained with a 4x5 camera. Probably, it would be advantageous to add a pressure plate between the long springs to flatten the roll film to achieve superior resolution like that demonstrated in Figures 19 and 20.
Is it the camera for you?
Definitely, if you want a fun project and if you have the ability to make the conversion I outline above.
Choosing a secondhand camera that is a hundred years old is always a bit of a lottery, especially if you cannot inspect it in person. The key things to look for, or hope for, are a bellows in good condition and a lens without serious blemishes. The mechanical parts of these cameras are fairly robust including the shutter and not overly difficult to rejuvenate. I would choose a Kodak 3A Autographic in good condition over a Special that was less so, and a later model of around 1920 preferably with the Bausch and Lomb or Zeiss lens. Of course, there is no real guarantee of how a lens will actually perform unless the seller has already converted it to 120 film and can demonstrate performance.
The other important thing to look for if you want trouble free frame counting is an Autographic model so you can add a window to view the roll film (possibly a hole could be cut in a non-Autographic).
Once you get the system working, you may well get addicted to the challenge of looking for panoramic scenes.
Notes:
1. A bewildering range of Kodak 3A Autographic and Specials were produced but fortunately the backs and roll film system and focus rack assembly did not change much over 20 years. However, the optical system – bellows, lens, shutter, shutter release etc. came in a bewildering range of combinations. Moreover, a lens labelled Bausch and Lomb, for instance, could be made under license from Zeiss.
2. Film used was Ilford HP5Plus exposed at 400ASA with extreme minimal development in Pyrocat, except in Figure 17 which used Ilford PanFPlus exposed at 50 ASA and developed in undiluted Xtol. Negatives for Figures 13-15 and 18-20 were scanned at high resolution in 3 sections with a Nikon DSLR and photomerged. Other negatives were simply scanned with an iPhone. (Conversion was with Negative Lab Pro.)
3. A short video covering this post can be found at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/photoplastic/albums/72157628431514855/
Comments
Post a Comment