User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  5
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Managed to fit a roll of 120 in my Kinax camera

  1. #1
    Former Username : Wetpixels Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Managed to fit a roll of 120 in my Kinax camera

    I was asking, recently, about an old Kinax camera, and what to do with it. I decided I had to put at least one roll of film through it. I bought a roll of Ilford PANF Plus 50 B&W 120 film. I wanted a lowish ISO because the camera's shutter only goes up to 1/150.

    I had read that the 120 spools can be modified to fit many 620 cameras, and sure enough - was able to do it. Turns out it is really easy, because the Ilford spool has thin ends with raised edges. I just cut around each spool end with toenail clippers to make the ends flush with the film roll. This removed the raised edges too, so nothing further was required. It fit in the Kinax snugly but easily. No problems advancing the film, even the markings on the film back line up with the little red window on the rear of the camera. I took a couple of quick test shots using the Sunny f/16 rule.

    Now to plan how to use the rest - I believe 12 exposures per roll is normal for 6x6, but this camera looks rectangular - perhaps 6x7, so I will get less.

  2. #2
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,833
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good on yer. That's very interesting. Don't go above about ISO200 film, and use high f-stops if necessary.
    Now for some pictures... (Oh, and of your spool modification, too. And remember, ask for your spools back
    from processing.)
    Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  3. #3
    Perpetually Bewildered fillum's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,119
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Great to see you using the camera...

    Quote Originally Posted by wetpixels View Post
    ...this camera looks rectangular - perhaps 6x7, so I will get less.
    If it's a 'folder' probably 6x9, so 8 (I think) shots per 120 roll. (My dad has a similar old Kodak).


    Cheers.
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


  4. #4
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fillum View Post
    Great to see you using the camera...

    If it's a 'folder' probably 6x9, so 8 (I think) shots per 120 roll. (My dad has a similar old Kodak).


    Cheers.
    Right, I will count on only 8. Will be interesting to see how well they turn out.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    Good on yer. That's very interesting. Don't go above about ISO200 film, and use high f-stops if necessary.
    Now for some pictures... (Oh, and of your spool modification, too. And remember, ask for your spools back
    from processing.)
    Am.
    Yes, will definitely want the 620 spool back. As I understand it, the rule of thumb for exposure says, on a normal sunny day, set the aperture to f/16 and shutter speed to the inverse of the film speed, 1/50 th of a second in my case (with ISO50 film). I printed out a chart of typical exposures, so I will work with that.

  5. #5
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What are you shooting?

    F/16 for landscapes may be a bit too wide open .. MF remember.

    I can't remember the focal length of the lens on your camera. Is it something like 100mm or so? If so, then f/16 at 100mm on a medium format is not 'a lot' of DOF.

    Good luck with it all.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  6. #6
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    What are you shooting?

    F/16 for landscapes may be a bit too wide open .. MF remember.

    I can't remember the focal length of the lens on your camera. Is it something like 100mm or so? If so, then f/16 at 100mm on a medium format is not 'a lot' of DOF.

    Good luck with it all.
    I am going to plead ignorance here The term, 'medium format' was unfamiliar to me until I googled it just now. The camera goes from f4.5 to f32, and the lens has f=105 on it. I didn't realise f/16 was considered fairly wide open for these cameras. I had heard the cheapies were often fixed aperture at f/8 or so, so I thought f/16 was OK. Happy to hear advice to the contrary, as it will help me get to know how to use this camera better. Should I lock it into f/32 for landscapes?

  7. #7
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Best way to visualise the DOF would be to get any lens capable of 105mm set it to f/16 and study the DOF within that image.

    Forget the crop factor part. You'll need to force yourself to look beyond the crop factor of your digital camera when comparing to a larger format.

    Alternatively you could crate a panorama with the digital camera(taking crop format into account) and create a visually similar image.

    That is, if you have an APS-C format digital camera and can attach a 105mm lens, then you'd need to shoot about 16 images or so 4 across and 4 down to approximate the FOV of a 105mm lens on MF.
    In reality you may actually need more than 16 images as you'll need to account for perspective distortion and overlap.

    I think from memory, a 105mm lens on 6x6 or 6x7 is equal to about a 50mm lens on FF, or about 35mm on APS-C. The sensor size ratio for a 6x6 is about 2x that of 35mm .. or in lens terms the 'crop factor' is approx 0.5x compared to 35mm.


    I'd say a minimum of f/22 would be a good starting point, but yeah, f/32 may be more likely to produce a typical landscape type scene.
    This in no way takes away from the fact that you can use f/16 for your landscape images, just expect a shallow-ish DOF.

    Oh! and a tip. Because this is most likely your first time shooting this camera and film, take reference images using your digital camera at the same time, using similar settings.
    Something that will happen(almost for sure) is that your exposure will be all over the place(in the resultant images).
    Many reasons for this, but something not many people don't take into account is an inaccurate shutter or aperture mechanisms in the camera.
    So for example if your shutter is 'dragging' then your exposures will actually be longer than you believe them to be.

    if the resulting film images are either blown or lost, then having reference data with the settings used can help to trace the source of the discrepancy.

    The other option is to 'take notes' .. LOL! .. that's what I thought would be easy to do, but turns out that you become too engrossed in the moment and forget the insignificant elements.
    A reference shot via another camera is just easier to do.
    What I then did was to place those reference images into the same folder on my PC as my scanned film images, with labels(or names of files) indicating which digital image was the reference for a specific film equivalent.
    Don't simply rely on visuals to do this tho .. ie. don't assume that either the digital or film image will be exposed properly in any way

    I'd be inclined to use the digital camera as a reference point for a correct exposure, and with my gut feeling that this old camera may have a slow shutter, I'd then set the film camera to at least -1Ev compared to the digital reference .. maybe as much -2Ev may be required.

  8. #8
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reference shots with a digital are a good idea. I WAS just going to note the settings for each.

    At this point, I don't even know if the camera is leaking light or anything. The bellows look intact, but who knows. Shutter speed and aperture and all continously variable (no stops), so nothing will be set accurately. I'll be happy if I get any sort of decent photos.

  9. #9
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,833
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Wet...
    I, however, would not call f/16 "wide-open" in that context - ie, from f/4.5 to f/32.

    If - just in case - you do not know the relationship yet (apologies if you do), the f-stop is the ratio of
    the aperture you have selected and the focal length of the lens (here f=105mm).

    ie, f-stop "=" focal length/aperture
    or, more practicably:
    aperture "=" focal length/f-stop

    So your f/16 indicates that the aperture being used is 105/16 = 6.56 mm (approx.)

    The point is - that AK is making inter alia is that even at f/16, you will not have "much" DOF with that camera - or any with a "long" lens.

    For the exercise, your min and max apertures will be...

    For f/4.5 ~ 23.3 mm
    For f/32 ~ 3.28 mm

    Cheers (if helps your confusion)
    Am(mm).

    Oh, and PS, a medium format (film) camera is any that has a larger frame size than 35mm but only up till about 4" x 5", when they become "large" format, and other expressions.
    And another PS: the actual aperture varies for any given f-stop when the focal length changes. (Again, abject apologies if you already knew.)
    Last edited by ameerat42; 30-05-2013 at 7:03am.

  10. #10
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No need for apologies, some I knew, some I didn't.
    One thing confusing me... when shooting a landscape with the focus set to infinity, I have been reading that depth of field wasn't a big consideration. Focus should extend from the hyperfocal distance to infinity.

  11. #11
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wetpixels View Post
    .....
    One thing confusing me... when shooting a landscape with the focus set to infinity, I have been reading that depth of field wasn't a big consideration. Focus should extend from the hyperfocal distance to infinity.
    Apparently, yes!

    Problem arises when you use a longer focal length lens in that the hyperfocal distance is very far into the distance.
    So as long as there is nothing of interest you want rendered sharply at a close distance, your landscape should look like a typical landscape image.

    The DOF still may be a concern if you want lots of DOF in the image, because the 'sharply rendered' zone may begin very deep into the image.
    It really depends on the scene itself. If there's no reason to render the foreground sharply then there's nothing to concern yourself with.

    Something else to consider too about keeping notes with a digital reference file is that with this reference, you have an easy way to figure out what works for you, or not in using the camera.

    eg. is the lens working well for you at f/16, or f/22 .. or even f/32 .. or are you better off at f/8 or f/4.5.

  12. #12
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    Apparently, yes!

    Problem arises when you use a longer focal length lens in that the hyperfocal distance is very far into the distance.
    So as long as there is nothing of interest you want rendered sharply at a close distance, your landscape should look like a typical landscape image...
    Yes, I did a calculation based on equations in wikipedia I think, and hyperfocal distance is about 10 metres at f/16

  13. #13
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    According to DOF Master hyperfocal is at 15m, so it's not as bad as I thought it was going to be.

    D800 is more like about 30m at 105mm .. but of course I hadn't taken CoC into account with my previous replies(about DOF being quite shallow).
    And it really does depend on reproduction ratio too. If you have a 6x6 film to scan, you obviously have a larger 'sensor' image to begin with anyhow(even compared to a 35mm format sensor, regardless of Mp count).

    Are you planning on getting the film professionally scanned of they come out OK, or are you going to just use a domestic scanner.
    Domestic scanner may not do them justice, and if the cost of pro scanning is daunting, consider using a home made slide copier technique using your digital camera to create raw images of the slides.
    Someone made a thread about their home made box of light. Seemed like a great way to digitize their film.
    I (personally)use a bellows unit, but this may be impractical for a MF slide.

  14. #14
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    01 Dec 2010
    Location
    salisbury
    Posts
    566
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have done a calculation with, DOFMASTER,using 6x6 film,if you focus on a point 15m from the film at f16 it will give you an in focus distance of 7.3m in front of you to infinity.

    Jack.

    - - - Updated - - -

    If you want to do a cheap scan of slide or negatives tape them to a south facing window(or any window not having direct light) and shoot them with your digital camera.

    It will not do justice to your 6x6 film but it Will give you an idea as to the quality,for 35mm film it gives a good result.

    Jack.
    Last edited by pixy; 30-05-2013 at 1:41pm.
    Pentax K5iis, k7 plus lenses from 18mm-600mm.

  15. #15
    Sir Rattus79 - The Proclaimant
    Join Date
    15 Jul 2010
    Location
    Forest Lake
    Posts
    1,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you want to do a cheap scan of slide or negatives tape them to a south facing window(or any window not having direct light) and shoot them with your digital camera.

    It will not do justice to your 6x6 film but it Will give you an idea as to the quality,for 35mm film it gives a good result.

    Jack.
    If you have an Ipad, then any softbox type app, that renders the screen white, can be used. Just whack your neg on the ipad and shoot it with a macro lens.

    Make sure to have the camera perpendicular (at 90degrees) to the ipad.
    Greg Bartle,
    I have a Pentax and I'm not afraid to use it.
    Pentax K5
    Sigma 10-20 | Tamron 17-50 F:2.8 | Sigma 50 F:1.4 | Sigma 70-200 F:2.8 Plus a bunch of Ye Olde lenses


    Would you like to see more?
    http://flickr.com/photosbygreg

  16. #16
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lot's of good ideas! Yes, I only have a home scanner, but the idea of digitally photographing the negatives is intriguing. South facing windows, or use a tablet as a backlight - all great ideas.

    That also means I could possibly process the negatives myself at home, then digitise them directly, and not have to take the exposed film to the lab at all. But I get ahead of myself...

  17. #17
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tablet or window is a good idea just to get some images onto the PC quickly, but if you want high quality renderings, all extraneous lighting should be eliminated. This is why the gear with proper shielding exists.

    The bellows with slide copy adapter has another bellows from the front of the lens to the adapter that shields all the light between the slide and lens.

    The home made slide copy boxes use similar principles in that the camera(or at least the lens) is basically inserted into the box cutting out all light around it.
    Lighting is concentrated from behind the slide, which then gives a naturally better contrast.

    I did shoot a few images without using the lens shield on the bellows, and I didn't think to keep them to show the difference between using it and not using it. Because I got a good capture of the slides(with the lens shield), the images without the use of the lens shield were deleted.

    I would try the various methods of 'scanning' to see what works for ya and what doesn't. That is, what's easiest and best.

    To make one of these slide copy boxes is quite easy and can be free .. such as using a shoebox and taking the time to seal it well. Cut a hole in both ends, one for the lens to poke into, and the other with a slot to fit the slides. A desklamp for lighting behind the slide .... and shoot.

  18. #18
    Former Username : Wetpixels
    Threadstarter
    Dazz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 May 2013
    Location
    South East Queensland
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I quite like DIY things, and the shoebox idea sounds easy, thanks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •