Kodak Medalist reincartated

[mickeyobe]

My beautiful Kodak Medalist 1. Now in proper working order.
All I need is some 620 film.


To the rescue. a Universal Roamer 1


As you can see it takes either 120 or 620 film.
First I wind the 120 film onto another 120 spool.
Then I wind it back onto a 620 spool.


I load it into the Medalist and ….






All worked well but the film and processing and transfer to a CD cost me over $40.00 CAN.

If I want to use this camera I shall have to process the film myself.
What to do?

Mickey

[daveh]

Ah, Mickey, it's here - this entry from you is the one that was causing the error when I tried to reply on the competition thread.

I know where to come if I want a spool of 620.

[mickeyobe]

Mar 4, 2012 18:42:16 GMT -5 daveh said:

I know where to come if I want a spool of 620.

Dave,

From my small accumulation of old cost nothing Brownies including those slightly more costly beautiful UK made Brownies C,D,E and F, I garnered more than enough 620 spools to cool my yearning.

They will all be returned with thanks to their original homes when I have done with them.

Mickey

[daveh]

Mickey,

I have to say that I've never really had a good look at the Brownie range. I like the look of the Medalist. I must ask, as it's an Olympic Games year: did they make a gold, silver and bronze model?

Nice pics, though.

Dave.

[mickeyobe]

Mar 5, 2012 15:07:40 GMT -5 daveh said:

Mickey,

I have to say that I've never really had a good look at the Brownie range. I like the look of the Medalist. I must ask, as it's an Olympic Games year: did they make a gold, silver and bronze model?

Nice pics, though.

Dave.

Dave,

The UK Brownies are beautiful cameras, extremely well constructed and designed for box cameras.

The Medalist was introduced by Kodak in 1941 for two reasons.

1. As a smaller more manageable replacement for the bulky Graphic/Graphlex type cameras then being used by most war photographers.
It was a system camera with a good range of accessories but no interchangeable lenses. Its only shortcoming. At about 3 pounds it is still lighter and less bulky than the press cameras. There are reports of it having been used as a weapon by combat photographers in dangerous situations. It apparently survived to snap another day.
It was used extensively by the US WW 2 photographers.

2. To introduce a Kodak film to the market that wasn't being copied by every film manufacturer.

Mickey

[daveh]

Mickey,

Thanks. Another of our great little threads.

Dave.

[Berndt]

All worked well but the film and processing and transfer to a CD cost me over $40.00 CAN.

WOW

I shoot a lot on 120 film, but all developing services here charge the same as for a 35 mm film, which is app. $7 CAN. If it's a special film type ( like a Kodak T-max ), it can be more expensive though. B/W film developments are about $4 CAN. In the end, 120 film is just more expensive ( per picture ), because there are less pictures on a film, but the costs for processing in standard C41 or E6 shouldn't be more expensive.

The costs for scanning differ a lot here though ... but $40 is still something. I would check some online services, if your local store intends to rip you off I usually pay 70 cent per frame for a quite good scan in high resolution.

I also prefer slide film if possible. The advantage is, you can get you film developed first and see, which pictures are messed up and which are worth a scan. Saves money as well.

The most expensive processing, I ever need to be done, has been a Fomapan R, which needed to be sent to a special lab in Europe, because there does not exist any lab in Japan anymore, capable of developing B/W slide films ... but still ... that has been far from $40 CAN.

[Berndt]

BTW, Mickey ... my personal film recommendation would be the Kodak E100VS. You will be quite surprised, what your old Kodak Medalist can do then. As I see from the posted pics, the camera ist still working very well. But you might need to hurry up. One of the saddest news these days ... this and other brilliant Kodak films are going to be discontinued.
www.mirrorlessrumors.com/kodak-discontinues-their-slide-films/

However, I will definitely put some E100VS in my personal stock before the worse things will happen. There are many good films, depending on the effect, you want to achieve ... but regarding true but vivid colors plus super fine grain, nothing reaches the E100VS ... not even the Fuji Velvia ... in my opinion.

[mickeyobe]

berndt,

Thank you for that information.

I would really like to use black and white. It may be regular film or C41.
Unfortunately I did not do any research before having it processed. That I shall do now having learned my lesson my usual hard way.

Kodak used to market an inexpensive "Tri Chem Pak" which contained small packets of developer, stop bath and fixer. Unfortunately that is in the past. So I would have to resort to larger amounts which would be wasted.

I really don't want to start up my darkroom again if I can avoid it. I shall, therefore, hunt around and try to find someone who can give me negatives and a CD at somewhat less than the cost of a new Ferrari. I think I can still read a B&W negative well enough to determine if it is good or not.
However If I can find what I want it will not matter whether it is prints or slides. I will go for the cheapest and do any darkroom adjustments in Photoshop.

Two days ago in the TtV Photography thread zook5256 (Doug) mentioned taking a digital photo from a TLR ground glass. I just might try it with a ground glass on the film plane of the Medalist. I do not have the ground glass adapter for the camera but I do have a film pack and sheet film adapter into which I can slide the glass.

Mickey

[Berndt]

Mickey,

I am sure, you will find a good online processing service easily. For an ordinary B/W film, the development shouldn't be more than $5 ( plus maybe shipping ).

As for B/W films, the cheapest will usually do ... but there are also quite a few interesting ( and a little bit more expensive ) films around. Two of them are
Adox CHS 25 ( app. $3 ), which has superfine grain or the Rollei Retro 80S ( app $3.50 ) ... or maybe an orthochromatic film might be interesting for getting some vintage look.

I also do some post on my pictures as well, but I would say, there are limits. You can't bring things out, which hasn't been captured. B/W films sometimes differ in the way, they capture parts of the visual spectrum. The mentioned Rollei 80S for example is a super-panchromatic film, sensitive up to 750 nm. Especially skin tones are strongly influented by this. Up to a certain level, those effects can also be achieved by using filters ... but I would say "up to a certain level", similar to Photoshop. A filter always takes something away, but does not add. As for an exteme example, I would mention infrared film. A similar effect can be achieved by photoshopping ... but still not really perfect.

Another ( and my favorite ) example is the legendary Kodachrome film ( although not B/W ). I have never seen anybody succeeding in emulating this look neither from another film nor from digital. If anybody find a way, he'll be rich, I guess. But that always shows me, that there are limits. Post on B/W is easier in general though.

Good luck and looking forward to seeing your pictures !!!