Color film with a Kodak Box Brownie 620 Model D

 Even though shooting on box brownies is even less cost-effective than most shooting with film, I enjoy it.

With 35mm film, you get 24 or 36 exposures per roll.  When shooting a spool of 120, on a lot of cameras you get 12 or 16 exposures:  halfway decent.  

But with a box brownie, you get eight.

The below is with a Kodak Box Brownie 620 Model "D".  It actually takes 620 format film, not 120.  But I use the trick of using toenail clippers to make the roll of 120 fit into the "feeder" slot that's sized for 620.  But you need an actual empty 620-sized spool of 620 for the film take-up position, because the end of the rod that turns the take-up spool doesn't grip the roll of 120 sufficiently (the bar at the end of the bar is shallower and narrower than what the roll of 120 is designed for -- so it slips).  So you either have to ask the lab to save the 620 spool for you -- or you can go into a super-dark room and roll the film (once you've shot it) back onto the original roll of 120, and label it "EXPOSED"... and rubber-band it shut.  Which is what I tend to do.

Anyhow, since it's the same film-purchasing, developing, and scanning costs for shooting 8, 12, or 16 exposures -- only shooting 8 exposures costs twice as much as shooting 16... and 1.5 times as much as shooting 12.  But -- you do get some oddly large film negatives -- which is pretty cool.

 

Anyhow!  Here's what I have.  I forgot to write down the brand of film.  Obviously, color.  Probably Kodak?

Am now taking better notes on film types.  ;)

More pics of that house.

 

 

A building in downtown Brisbane.

 Straight off the presses -- no retouching. 

 

--GG

Kodak Box Brownie 620D - Ilford XP2 - Wizard and farmer

 Goofing around with a Kodak 620D box camera.  I'm not certain that the slight "softness" to the tone is due to the film (Ilford XP2), or the camera.  But I suspect that that the camera lens determines the focus, and the film does the coloring.

I'm a wizard, Harry -- and also some sort of old-timey farmer.  ;) 

(See also the YouTube link that "Future Me" posted:  I play a wizard that's an office temp.  A co-worker and I did it for a 48 hour film challenge. It's mostly his vision: he and I and his partner came up with the concept, and then he, his partner, and her brother brainstormed some more -- but he wrote the script, defined the shot list, directed, and did all the editing and visual effects. (But it's my camerawork.)  ;)

 

This one is the "un-altered" version -- more typical of the "look" (contrast, darkness) of the Ilford XP2.

Whereas this is the edited version, where I bumped up the contrast a bit.

--GG

Three from a box Brownie

Not terribly exciting -- but I'm okay with them. 

The best out of the roll of eight.  

Shot with an old Kodak box Brownie.  

As usual:  no digital editing; double-click to see them better.  :) 

 

--GG

Box camera with Lomography Redscale 120 film

This roll was a little more interesting.  Shot on a Kodak Box Brownie, where I had a little bit of choice for the aperture size.

This was shot on Lomography brand "Redscale" 120-size film, which supposedly boosts the reds and oranges.  I can see it a little bit -- but mostly, it just looks "1970s" to me (which is okay -- it's a "look").

A web search indicated that to really get the vibrant reds and oranges, you need to over-expose the shot slightly.  I was aiming for that -- but I probably didn't "lean into it" as much as I could've.

I have a few more rolls of this -- so next time I'll shoot through a camera that shoots 120 and lets me vary the shutter speed and/or aperture.

A few good shots.  The one of the logs is my favorite (shot in the woods behind my house).  The steps are from a (closed) African restaurant that's on the way to my kids' school:  I wanted to take a shot of the whole building (it's painted orange) -- but the sun was too low in the sky to make the orange walls super bright -- and I needed to get going to work.  I'll have to visit it on the weekend, where I can wait for the sun to be a little higher in the sky.

Remember to double-click, to see them properly:  a lot of them just look "cluttered" when they're not enlarged.  :) 

An interesting double-exposure on that last one, there -- a white house in the middle of the pile of plastic bottles.

I'm getting better at not doing accidental double-exposures when shooting 120:  I now leave the roll "between numbers" after I take a shot, and only queue up the number when I'm about to shoot.

As usual -- no "color grading" after the fact:  this is just the un-enhanced digital scans of the negatives.  :)

--GG