 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / December 2005What film type?
Dad had a 1960's Agfa camera. I'm looking at the prints from it, and the transparencies. The prints are square (well, very near square) approximately 3 ½" x 3½". What size of film was dad using? Thanks. > Dad had a 1960's Agfa camera. I'm looking at the prints from it, and the > transparencies. The prints are square (well, very near square) > approximately 3 ½" x 3½". What size of film was dad using? Thanks. I assume you are looking at prints only and do not have the negatives? The film could have been 120, 127 or 620 which were 2¼" x 2¼" negatives (actually 6cm x 6cm,) the difference being in the spool on which they were mounted: the 120 (which is still widely available and used in so-called large format cameras like Hasselblads, Bronicas, and Mammyas) had a spool with holes in the end and the spigots in the camera; the 620 had the spigots on the spool. 127 film had a 38x38mm negative on a similar but obviously smaller spool. The size of the print is unrelated to the size of the negative, only to the format. Since all of these were square negatives then you got square prints. By comparison 35mm film has a 36x24mm frame size (aspect ratio 3:2) so at that time would have had so-called enprints that were roughly 5½" x 3½" - hence the printing paper came from the same stock size, just cut to different lengths. One thing you will notice is that as the negative was so much bigger - assume 6cm x 6cm - to get to 'enprint' size requred around four times less enlargement than a 35mm negative so the end result was a visibly better picture quality than 35mm no matter how poor the camera. That is the sole reason for using large format - the end picture quality. -- Woody harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com > > Dad had a 1960's Agfa camera. I'm looking at the prints from it, and > the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com Oh, when I say transparencies I mean negatives! Sorry. 3½" x 3½" is approximately the size of the pictures on the prints. The negatives that I have, the actual picture size for each frame, is 25mm x 25mm or 1" x 1". The negatives are cut into strips, some having 5, 6, 7 frames on them. The negative strips are sprocketed. Each frame spans 6 sprocket holes. I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked "Enprint". For size, some just say "Rapid". >> > Dad had a 1960's Agfa camera. I'm looking at the prints from it, and >> the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked "Enprint". >For size, some just say "Rapid". 126 film produced 26mm by 26mm negatives AFAIK.  SignatureChris Morriss 126 just has one hole per frame for film advance. This sounds like squared-off 35mm which sounds very odd. > >> > Dad had a 1960's Agfa camera. I'm looking at the prints from it, and > >> the [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > 126 film produced 26mm by 26mm negatives AFAIK. >The negatives that I have, the actual picture size for each frame, is >25mm x 25mm or 1" x 1". The negatives are cut into strips, some having [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked "Enprint". >For size, some just say "Rapid". That's the one - "Agfa Rapid" was 35mm film housed in special "Rapid" cassettes that allowed casette-to-cassette spooling so unlike "normal" 35mm cassette film no rewind was needed. Agfa Rapid cameras produced exactly the type of negatives you describe, 24mmx24mm square on 24 (or maybe it was 25) exposure lengths of otherwise standard 35mm perforated film. SignatureJohn Bean > >The negatives that I have, the actual picture size for each frame, is > >25mm x 25mm or 1" x 1". The negatives are cut into strips, some having [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you describe, 24mmx24mm square on 24 (or maybe it was 25) > exposure lengths of otherwise standard 35mm perforated film. Okay, so I've got 35mm perforated film, but the frames have a 1:1 aspect ratio (24mm x 24mm) rather than standard 35mm which has 3:2 ratio (35mm x 24mm). Next: Any idea how my 35mm film with 1:1 aspect ratio can be made to work with a film scanner that can handle standard 35mm ratio (3:2)? TIA. I've never owned or used a film scanner BTW. >Okay, so I've got 35mm perforated film, but the frames have a 1:1 aspect >ratio (24mm x 24mm) rather than standard 35mm which has 3:2 ratio (35mm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >work with a film scanner that can handle standard 35mm ratio (3:2)? TIA. >I've never owned or used a film scanner BTW. The holders may be a problem. I bought an Epson flatbed scanner to handle odd sizes and it performs rather better than my Minolta film scanner even on standard 35mm. SignatureJohn Bean Richard <useless@dot.com> observed >Okay, so I've got 35mm perforated film, but the frames have a 1:1 aspect >ratio (24mm x 24mm) rather than standard 35mm which has 3:2 ratio (35mm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >work with a film scanner that can handle standard 35mm ratio (3:2)? TIA. >I've never owned or used a film scanner BTW. I don't really understand the question. I have a 35mm film scanner. The software permits selective areas to be scanned. As 24mm fits inside the 36mm length, the only real problem you may have is flare from the edges. You could make a simple mask to fit in the film holder. HIH Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< >> > Dad had a 1960's Agfa camera. I'm looking at the prints from it, and >> the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked "Enprint". > For size, some just say "Rapid". Agfa rapid Was 35 mm film in a container that auto loaded and ran into a container at the other side which was the taken for processing and the now empty container moved to the receiving side ready for the next film. I though they used the same 24 x 36 mm format as 35 mm but I see I dont know as much as I Thought. I think it was too early and one might say that aps eventually pinched the idea and added a few extras. > > I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked "Enprint". > > For size, some just say "Rapid". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as much as I Thought. I think it was too early and one might say that aps > eventually pinched the idea and added a few extras. What will "enprint" mean on my receipts given the film was Agfa Rapid (35mm perforated film with frames of 1:1 ratio (24mm x 24mm)? The prints measure approx. 3.5" x 3.5". TIA. >> > I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked > "Enprint". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (35mm perforated film with frames of 1:1 ratio (24mm x 24mm)? The prints > measure approx. 3.5" x 3.5". TIA. Enlarged print, at one time all you got where contact prints The same size as the negative Fine for the old box or bellows cameras using 8 on 120 or 620 giving 3.5 x 2.5 But not much cop for the miniature users (35 mm) so they invented a fixed size enlargement machine. > >> > I've got some of the old (1965) receipts and some are marked > > "Enprint". [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 620 giving 3.5 x 2.5 But not much cop for the miniature users (35 mm) so > they invented a fixed size enlargement machine. Thanks, I never could figure out what the word meant. Of course, on these recipts you also have the option of chooosing "enlarge". That must be an instruction to make a print above the regular standard enprint size, which I guess was 3.5" x 3.5". >Of course, on these recipts you also have the option of chooosing >"enlarge". That must be an instruction to make a print above the >regular standard enprint size, which I guess was 3.5" x 3.5". They used continuous 3.5" paper roll, so you got different sizes to fit the negative. 3.5x5 was common, as was 3.5x3.5. The enprint was the precursor to the ubiquitous 6x4 minilab print that we see today. "Enlargements" (bigger than enprint) were disproportionately more expensive because they were done one by one on standard cut sheet paper. SignatureJohn Bean |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.