Kodak 3A camera - 122 film format

[Robert Hughes]

I just picked up a Kodak 3A / B2 camera from a local antique shop. For a camera with apparently good leather bellows and working shutter, I'd say $18 was a great deal! It looks quite similar to this photo:

http://www.photographyhistory.com/CS07/EKC3aFPK.jpg

It uses an interesting 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 "postcard" format frame. The spools say "3A" on them, I understand the 122 format was the equivalent, more recent offering. But, of course, they haven't made film in that size since 1971, so the camera as it sits is nothing more than a charming display item.

Has anyone rebuilt one of these to use 120 or other format roll film - or refitted it for 4x5 sheet film use? I did find a picture of one factory variation with a combo back on it for sheet film:

http://www.vintagephoto.tv/images/3afpk_ggback.jpg

A simple overhaul on this camera may be in order - it could become my pauper's Littman, eh?

[Oren Grad]

But, of course, they haven't made film in that size since 1971, so the camera as it sits is nothing more than a charming display item.

If you're willing to pay a truly breathtaking price, Film for Classics still spools a batch of 122 once in a while. The only dealer that lists it for sale is:

http://www.centralcamera.com/Film/Film-for-Older-Cameras/Type-122-Black-White-Film/

[Robert Hughes]

That's funny - one roll of film would cost twice as much as the camera itself!

I was reading on http://www.6x14.com that the red bellows on cameras such as this were seal hide, as opposed to cow leather.

BTW, if I put a roll of film through this thing (even that ginormous 122 film), would it be considered an MF camera? If I put a sheet film back on it, would it then be LF?

[LF4Fun]

one can add a frame mask to make this camera accepts 120 size film.
I have the same camera and planning to convert it to a 6x14 but haven't found a time to actually do it.

[Nathan Smith]

I've never seen anyone use sheet film for the 3A, but lots of folks use 120 film in them - makes a nice panoramic view. There used to be plenty of stuff on the web about this, google something like "Kodak 3A 120 film" or "Kodak 3A panorama", you'll probably find some. Most people make adapters to use 120 film spools I think. I have one but have never gotten around to trying it out.

[c.d.ewen]

I've never seen anyone use sheet film for the 3A

Nate! You gotta get out more! ;)

Actually, this 3A back was made for 3.25"x5.5" glass plates. I suppose you could make some inserts to use sheet film. The rollfilm back pops off and this back clips on. The combo back has three pieces which slide into the hole in the back. There's a ground glass, a two-sided plate holder, and a blank with ruby glass hole for use with rollfilm.

Charley

[Louis Pacilla]

Hey I think there is a 3A plate back & two holders for sale on eBay right now & they appeared in like new condition . The buy now price was $250.00 . WOW!:eek: Just a bit more than the price of your 3A camera.

If your patient they come up for auction or sale every now & then.Usually much less in asking price as well.


Nate! You gotta get out more! ;)

Actually, this 3A back was made for 3.25"x5.5" glass plates. I suppose you could make some inserts to use sheet film. The rollfilm back pops off and this back clips on. The combo back has three pieces which slide into the hole in the back. There's a ground glass, a two-sided plate holder, and a blank with ruby glass hole for use with rollfilm.

Charley

[BrianShaw]

One can open the roll-film back (in darkness) and simply lay a sheet of 4x5 on the film rails. The film will be shorter than the film gate, but it will actually stay in place. Then put the back on and shoot. Single shot, but might be fun.

[jnantz]

i have my grandparents kodak 3A autographic and at one point searched for the
combination back. never found one cheap enough though. i recently bought a graflex 3A autographic instead ..
i had one years ago i bought from jay tepper but it wasn't in very good condition so i mailed it back ( and have wanted one ever since ).
it took a bit of teasing, and oiling and with the help of bert at graflex.org i was able to figure out
where the tensioner spring is ... and have it pretty much working now ..
with about 1/8" trim, maybe less, a sheet of 5x7 paper fits in the back across
the film gate / rollers and makes the perfect negative on 5x7.
it kind of looks like what the folks who shoot mate a 4x5 back on their 2x3 / 3x4 graflexes get ..
i'd post the test-sheet but it is still drying ( just shot+souped it with my 8yr old :) )
with a piece of black-board, it would be easy to do this with film. ...

have fun robert !
john

[Nathan Smith]

Nate! You gotta get out more! ;)
Charley

Ah, but I said I'd never seen anyone USE sheet film in one :)

... and I still haven't, I've seen those backs & holders though and thought about it. Just haven't felt like cutting film & dealing with the odd negative size so far.

[c.d.ewen]

i have my grandparents kodak 3A autographic and at one point searched for the
combination back. never found one cheap enough though.

John:

I guess you don't look in enough trashcans. :p

My vague memory of buying this on eBay, probably almost a decade ago, when they were totally unwanted, was that I paid about $25 for it, and was probably the only bidder.

And, John, I suspect you know me and the trashheap I live in.....of course, I've got another. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to sell it for $25+shipping. It only has the GG insert, though. You'll have to make your own filmholder.

Nate: Does having a sheet of film loaded in the holder for fifty years count as use?:rolleyes:

Charley

[EdWorkman]

The postcard size was apparently very popular, at least back when you could get plates. I have a 3A Premo and that is stamped into the wood plateholders. I have printed cut film negs of that size as well, and as a kid shot 122 roll film in my grandfather's kodak. When I paid a buncha money for a plate back for the Kodak, I found that the plates and cut film were narrower than the roll film : 122 film is 3 5/8 wide. Awhiile back somebody posted that they own a 3A Speed with film holders - very cool. I have a 3A Graflex but have yet to pursue getting it to fire, so I bought a 3A Compact Graflex from Jim Galli. I have cadded parts to make a sheet film holder and await a time slot for my son to cut the pieces at his work. Graflex made several sizes of roll film holders but the frame length was across the film width- so I need 5 7/8 wide film for the roll holder I have for the Compact- not bloody likely I'll ever get any. kodak's RRs and anastigmats can make some very sharp images and I wish I'da made more when one could.

[Nathan Potter]

The 3A Kodak was the first camera I ever used. Grabbed it from the dusty attic of my grandfathers farm in Concord MA. in 1942 when I was a little kid. Used it on vacations here and there, with grandads advice, in New England when we were depression and wartime poor kids living on a depression era farm in Lincoln MA. Later I adapted a 4X5 film holder to the back and used another with a hole in the plenum to focus on frosted glass. Pretty crude setup but could be made elegant with a bit of wood working skill. I still have a few old 3A pics taken as early as 1942. Not LF so I don't post them here - although image area is 18 sq. in. so very close to 4X5.
The other Nate.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Joe O'Hara]

Has anyone tried mounting the lens from one of these on a 4x5 camera? It seems it should be able to cover that size, or nearly so.

The quality of the old contact prints that I have from the 3A that was in my family are very nice. I regret not saving the camera.

[Nathan Smith]

Has anyone tried mounting the lens from one of these on a 4x5 camera? It seems it should be able to cover that size, or nearly so.

The quality of the old contact prints that I have from the 3A that was in my family are very nice. I regret not saving the camera.

They're perfect for 4x5, 170mm is the average focal length I think.



Nate: Does having a sheet of film loaded in the holder for fifty years count as use?:rolleyes:
Charley

Well, yeah, I guess that does count as long-term use ... expect to see results any time soon? :)

[c.d.ewen]

Well, yeah, I guess that does count as long-term use ... expect to see results any time soon? :)

Gonna have to wait until the 3 feet of snow around here (NY) melts.

Charley

[rjmeyer314]

I brought a few rolls of 122 film off Ebay, just for the spools and paper backing. I've cut 5" aerial film down, and reloaded the rolls. The only point of this is that you can get pictures out of a Kodak 3A without spending $36 a roll for the stuff from Central Camera. I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I've come to the conclusion that I would rather shoot sheet film in a Speed Graphic than go through the hassle. Having said that, I'm going to try shooting some 5" roll film in a Kodak No. 5 (5x7 format), just to see if I can.

[BrianShaw]

Has anyone tried mounting the lens from one of these on a 4x5 camera? It seems it should be able to cover that size, or nearly so.


Yes it does, and the results of the B&L RR that is on mine is quite surprisingly good.

The only limitation is the shutter, and that is mostly a matter of inconvenience. Mine has only one shutter speed, I (instantaneous), which measures at about 1/50. The aperture is in the antiquated US scale and must be cosnidered when setting the exposure.

[jnantz]

you're right charlie, i junque stored dived for 12 years and came up M-T. :)
---
since it isn't quite large format
i haven't uploaded the image file from yesterday
but it came out OK considering we were winging it ;)

nothing high tech just a paper negative souped in a half-spent home-roasted coffee-based developer

if you travel to apug, it is in my blog there ...
i also started a something on wp, its pretty young, but just the same ..
about coffee, paper and using homemade large format cameras
nanianphoto.com/blog

since the weather is pretty cruddy again today and i have bout 2 hours
on my hands, i'll probably do it again

[Robert Hughes]

I like that idea of simply stuffing a 4x5" sheet of film onto the rails. Maybe I'll try that tonight! The lens on mine is a Rapid Rectilinear, maker unknown, with a Kodak shutter boasting B - T - 1/25 - 1/50 - 1/100 settings, and they all seem to work.

So - if I stick a sheet of film into a camera originally designed for roll film use, does the resultant image qualify as LF? How about if I took that lens off the Kodak and put it on my Busch Pressman 4x5 camera, and shot another sheet? What's the difference, LF- versus MF- wise?

Clearly, the format distinctions get muddled with cameras such as this...

[BrianShaw]

I like that idea of simply stuffing a 4x5" sheet of film onto the rails. Maybe I'll try that tonight! The lens on mine is a Rapid Rectilinear, maker unknown, with a Kodak shutter boasting B - T - 1/25 - 1/50 - 1/100 settings, and they all seem to work.

So - if I stick a sheet of film into a camera originally designed for roll film use, does the resultant image qualify as LF? How about if I took that lens off the Kodak and put it on my Busch Pressman 4x5 camera, and shot another sheet? What's the difference, LF- versus MF- wise?

Clearly, the format distinctions get muddled with cameras such as this...

Should be the same, wouldn't you think? As long as the film lies flat. Only difference might be focus if one is using anything other than infinity focus on the Kodak. I suspect the scale focus of the Kodak might be not as good as GG focusing. When I used the lens on my LF camera I GG focused then shot the film. I wish I had it handy to scan and show but can't. I was very happy with the quality but to be honest I ahd hope for less quality and more "vintage" look-and-feel.

[Albert Lombardi]

I am using paper with mine, I cut it to 3 3\4" x 6 1\4" and that works out to 23 square inches. LF all the way. :D

[Robert Hughes]

Update 1/20/11: Yesterday I stuck a sheet of 4x5 into the camera, took it outside and snapped a photo - only to realize afterward I hadn't covered over the film frame count window (which was missing its red window glass anyhow), so of course there was a horrendous light leak. No matter, I just wanted to see if it would work, which it did. Just fine - focus and exposure look in the ballpark.

Since moving in October, my photo lab stuff has been in storage, so after a while rooting around for stuff I came up with a tray and bag of developer, but no fixer. Off to National Camera Exchange (http://nationalcamera.com/goldenvalleycontact.html), where they still sell chemicals.

While at the register, I struck up a conversation with the old school film geek / counter salesman. "What camera are you shooting with?" he asked, so I looked over his head at his collection / museum of obsolete cameras gracing the top shelf, and pointed at one really beat and dusty Kodak 3A - "just like that one!" He pulled it down, we talked about Rapid Rectilinear lenses a moment, then I looked at the back; his camera had a complete back (no broken tabs or missing red window glass, as with my unit). Hmmm... Would he be willing to trade?

Long story short, this morning I traded my damaged back for their complete and functional one, and bought a box of FP4 4x5 to compensate them for the trouble. And we all got to play with some of their dusty old antiques for a few minutes. They even had a couple of units with Autograph backs, complete with stylus, but they didn't fit as well, so I went with one that was more like my original back.

As I was leaving, I joked with the sales lady about how easy it was to make perfect digi shots nowadays. The rejoinder? "Yeah, but you've got to spend real money to make bad photos!"

[BrianShaw]

That pesky red window!

[jnantz]

i have black masking tape on mine :)
and i made a lenscap (nosecone ) so i can do bulb exposures without
a problem ...

[jnantz]

I am using paper with mine, I cut it to 3 3\4" x 6 1\4" and that works out to 23 square inches. LF all the way. :D

hi albert

what is the image size ?
i trim my 5x7 paper down about 1/8th inch
so it is 4 7/8 x 7, but the image size is still 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 ...

john

[BrianShaw]

... but the image size is still 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 ...


Maybe I'm reading you too literally, but is there any other option? I have found that the image size for this camera can't get any bigger.

[EdWorkman]

Re Kodak Cartridge #4 and #5
I have a #4- 4x5 pics on a 5 inch wide roll of film, so the 5 inch is vertical. AFTER I got it from ebay [ whew I'm sure glad that fever is over] I found photos of the complete guts. An aluminum pressing and rollers is required for roll film and more often than not is missing, like mine.
BUT
I found that it also will take a standard 4x5 sheet film holder with a supllementary back, which I DO have- hence the losable roller thingy. I made a removeable GG but haven't tried it to see if I have a bellows problem etc.
The lens is a lovely looking Planatograph, which i understand to be of the RR family, if not a true RR.
should work.
So for a #5 Cartridge Kodak do you need 7 inch roll film? Or what?

[Robert Hughes]

hi albert

what is the image size ?
i trim my 5x7 paper down about 1/8th inch
so it is 4 7/8 x 7, but the image size is still 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 ...

john
Why not trim the other way? Get two paper sheets of 3 1/2" x 5". I may try that over the weekend.

[jnantz]

hi brian,
i think he was referring to the whole sheet of paper in the back of his camera?
you are right, i don't think the image size can be increased ...

===

hi robert

i thought about cutting the 5x7 in half, but the overlap / excess paper
keeps it from shifting, so i don't need to tape or put anything else in there --- i just stick the paper in the back.
i have 2 - 122 spools ... so eventually i will slit and roll 16x20 or 11x14 or 8x10 paper and spool it ..
i'll just have to use 1 "roll" in a darkroom to figure out how many winds it takes to not crowd the images,
and figure out the best length so i don't bind it up ..

have fun !
john

[Robert Hughes]

Slitting and spooling from large size paper? You bring up an interesting concept - I've got feed and takeup spools in the camera, maybe I'll try this idea also. It sure would be easier to scan paper negatives with my cheap-a$$ epson.

[jnantz]

well, i made the mistake of not letting the paper sit on the spool for a good long
time before feeding it through the camera :(
it unwound ( i forgot the last time i did something similar to this a few years ago
it did the same thing ! ) so, if you do this robert, leave your paper wound on the spool
for a fair amount of time so it gets a "memory" of the spool and doesn't unwind ...

i got 2 frames out of it at least i guess ... :)