5 ms·

"I still have them, and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long." Well, I can give you some answers that

by 2b3a51 4y ago

"I still have them, and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long." Well, I can give you some answers that my dad would type here if he was still around... The folding 120 film camera fits in your pocket [1], takes a wide range of films (slide, negative, different speeds and even with colour different tone characteristics). Many but not all roll film cameras of the 1950s and 60s took 12 square images on a 120 roll. So you did not have to turn the camera sideways at all. The negative is large enough to make contact prints from without an enlarger and give them away to friends and family members. 2¼ inch slides could be viewed in cheap slide viewer that you held up to the window more easily than 35mm. The larger negative area means the images are more forgiving of processing in your bathroom (I used to love the reticulation effects from using water that was too hot), and gives you more potential for cropping if you had an enlarger. The larger size of the camera means that the precision needed in the optical and mechanical parts is slightly lower and so cameras could be cheaper. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+roll+film+camera+balda https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+roll+film+camera+bal... Mind you I used a Pentax and a Nikon like everyone else in the 80s and 90s...

bambax 4y ago
Maybe some of this is true but I'm talking of cheap medium format things, with a cheap lens, and nobody in my family (before me) ever processed film in their bathroom. I suspect they bought these because that's what everyone around them bought, without giving it much thought.
- 2b3a51 4y ago
  True enough, people tend to buy what they see and can afford. We see that even now with laptops &c. My point exposure forgiveness of the larger negative and lower precision requirements in the camera still stands I think. Did your relatives get their photos processed at the chemist? Did they ever get enlargements of selected frames done? (Amazing how the cheaper smart phone has totally changed the way people use photographs - in less than a decade really) PS: don't underestimate the Cooke-Robinson triplet lens stopped down to around f/8. The main issue with the cheapies was flare and the absence of lens coatings.
  - bambax 4y ago
    I'm really talking about my two grand parents. One was an artist that took wonderful pictures that were enlarged and that are still hanging in my home. The other wasn't and his pictures were all out of focus and mostly pointless (and also, yes, many of his pictures had a flare which rendered half of it over exposed ;-)
    - 2b3a51 4y ago
      50% is a pretty good success rate! Have a look at the grain pattern in one of the enlarged prints. Cheers
kranke155 4y ago
I am also not sure whether good quality low grain film was likely easier to achieve in 120 format? Bigger film - low grain. And since the lenses were bigger, perhaps also easier to manufacture vs high quality low size high precision 35mm lenses ?

by 2b3a51 4y ago

bambax 4y ago

Maybe some of this is true but I'm talking of cheap medium format things, with a cheap lens, and nobody in my family (before me) ever processed film in their bathroom. I suspect they bought these because that's what everyone around them bought, without giving it much thought.

2b3a51 4y ago
True enough, people tend to buy what they see and can afford. We see that even now with laptops &c. My point exposure forgiveness of the larger negative and lower precision requirements in the camera still stands I think. Did your relatives get their photos processed at the chemist? Did they ever get enlargements of selected frames done? (Amazing how the cheaper smart phone has totally changed the way people use photographs - in less than a decade really) PS: don't underestimate the Cooke-Robinson triplet lens stopped down to around f/8. The main issue with the cheapies was flare and the absence of lens coatings.
- bambax 4y ago
  I'm really talking about my two grand parents. One was an artist that took wonderful pictures that were enlarged and that are still hanging in my home. The other wasn't and his pictures were all out of focus and mostly pointless (and also, yes, many of his pictures had a flare which rendered half of it over exposed ;-)
  - 2b3a51 4y ago
    50% is a pretty good success rate! Have a look at the grain pattern in one of the enlarged prints. Cheers

kranke155 4y ago

I am also not sure whether good quality low grain film was likely easier to achieve in 120 format? Bigger film - low grain. And since the lenses were bigger, perhaps also easier to manufacture vs high quality low size high precision 35mm lenses ?