Print PDF
Favorite
Email
This instructable has been removed by the author.
38
comments
|
Add Comment
|
Aug 27, 2011. 5:01 AMFetterChiller
says:
Wow, these photos are great!! I love it, that you took the negatives!
Mar 10, 2011. 6:06 PMfisch
says:
Brilliant. I was given a box brownie a year ago, and I've just got around to making this conversion. I had originally planned to stuff a cheap digital camera inside it, but I couldn't locate one which would fit in nicely, so this project was perfect for me.
Stop! Stop! Please take down this fantastic i'ble right away -- it's making me giddy with its goodness. That plastic clicker idea is so great I am chortling. I had to only give you 5 stars, because I can't give you 10. So save a fellow maker's life, and remove this as soon as possible.
May 6, 2010. 11:55 AMthom__stone
says:
this is fantastic, thank you so much, my mum bought me a box brownie for christmas and I didnt touch it for months till i saw this. really pleased with my results :-) i have linked so many people to this page in a hope they will give it a go aswel.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26670860@N08/sets/72157623817213653/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26670860@N08/sets/72157623817213653/
Mar 3, 2010. 3:42 AMnoodleguy
says:
Great guide, I bought a 35mm film and will follow the guide in setting it up on my Dad's argoflex camera
Nov 20, 2009. 7:43 PMUncle Kudzu
says:
very nice instructable (awesome graphic labeling of the steps) , but what's the advantage of using 35mm film when there's the option of using 120?
having said that... kinda cool the way the image goes all the way to the edge of the film, and i liked your explanation of your "scanning" and inversion process.
having said that... kinda cool the way the image goes all the way to the edge of the film, and i liked your explanation of your "scanning" and inversion process.
Nov 20, 2009. 8:13 PMlowercase (author)
says:
Thanks Uncle Kudzu, the only advantage, at least for me, it's that 35mm film is still easier to obtain and get developed than 120, specially color film, because I indeed shoot 120 B&N film but I process it by myself. besides you've noticed the uniqueness of exposing the whole frame strip with sprocket holes and all (wouldn't call that an advantage but surely it's a cool twist.)
I'm thinking about writing an instructable about photographing and inverting negatives because I've found a really easy method (fool-proof) for inverting color balanced negatives in Adobe Photoshop and many people are asking about the process.
I'm thinking about writing an instructable about photographing and inverting negatives because I've found a really easy method (fool-proof) for inverting color balanced negatives in Adobe Photoshop and many people are asking about the process.
Nov 21, 2009. 11:10 AMUncle Kudzu
says:
well, it's true that 120 film is harder to find and can't be developed just anywhere. good points, lowercase!
i'd be very interested in seeing your way of photographing and inverting color nrgatives made in to an instructable, since i don't have a scanner. i have lots of old negatives, plus, i haven't entirely given up conventional film photography yet.
Good Stuff, lowercase! thank you for sharing your excellent instructable!
i'd be very interested in seeing your way of photographing and inverting color nrgatives made in to an instructable, since i don't have a scanner. i have lots of old negatives, plus, i haven't entirely given up conventional film photography yet.
Good Stuff, lowercase! thank you for sharing your excellent instructable!
Yes, this works. But, the lenses on a box camera are not very precise and depend on a larger format film to make an acceptably sharp image. If you enlarge one of you box camera 35 mm negatives to a 4 x 6 inch print, the fall off in detail will be quite noticeable. Anyone doing this should not expect crisp prints.
Nov 22, 2009. 8:51 AMampersand2006
says:
That is not necessarily true. If that were the case Hasselblad would be out of business as well as Mamiya. If you are using a cheep medium format camera and lens, then yes, the quality would be compromised significantly. But, I shoot constantly with my Hasselblad 500 C/M for that specific reason: large, high quality prints.
Nov 22, 2009. 10:05 AMlowercase (author)
says:
You really can't compare a Hasselblad or Mamiya with a box camera. The format might be the same but the optics are way in the opposite side. Box cameras are just a step above a pinhole or zone plate camera.
I wish I had a Hasselblad... I often shoot with a Yashicamat 124G which is somewhat in the middle.
I wish I had a Hasselblad... I often shoot with a Yashicamat 124G which is somewhat in the middle.
Nov 12, 2009. 11:10 PMironsmiter
says:
Ible is good to know, if they ever stop making film for my 4x5 :-)
As to the "non-precise" bit..... I just don't see it.
I've done some art prints, using glass plate "film" in my box camera.
Blow-ups to over 4 FEET are still crystal clear.
Poor enlarging of 35MM film may be an issue of poor film quality?
or a dirty lens or mirrors?
In my experience, enlarging 35mm film usually leads to granularity issue, at larger sizes, not focus issues though. It's to be expected though that 35mm film, enlarged to the same finish size as medium-format film will show much worse granularity, on account of being enlarged that extra percentage.
Not sure where lowercase(author) is getting "lots of light leaks". Probably using an old camera, with bad seals? Mine doesn't leak at all, unless I open the door, or shutter. I did have to replace some foam, and straighten a slight bend in the door sheet metal when I got it. Well worth the trouble though. It outperforms my 6MP digital for art prints, hands down. Not gonna toss out my 35mm either, on account of the MASSIVE zoom lens I have for it. digital zoom just isn't the same :-)
As to the "non-precise" bit..... I just don't see it.
I've done some art prints, using glass plate "film" in my box camera.
Blow-ups to over 4 FEET are still crystal clear.
Poor enlarging of 35MM film may be an issue of poor film quality?
or a dirty lens or mirrors?
In my experience, enlarging 35mm film usually leads to granularity issue, at larger sizes, not focus issues though. It's to be expected though that 35mm film, enlarged to the same finish size as medium-format film will show much worse granularity, on account of being enlarged that extra percentage.
Not sure where lowercase(author) is getting "lots of light leaks". Probably using an old camera, with bad seals? Mine doesn't leak at all, unless I open the door, or shutter. I did have to replace some foam, and straighten a slight bend in the door sheet metal when I got it. Well worth the trouble though. It outperforms my 6MP digital for art prints, hands down. Not gonna toss out my 35mm either, on account of the MASSIVE zoom lens I have for it. digital zoom just isn't the same :-)
Nov 20, 2009. 12:53 PMamclaussen
says:
You are quite right!
One thing I see lately, is that young people are fooled by today's "advanced" digital phoyography lens... but the truth is that MOST older 35 mm SLR lenses were MUCH better (and less expensive) than today's lenses. The only areas where today's lenses are better, are the capability of auto focusing, and some Image Stabilized lenses.
Otherwise, lenses made during the 70'sand 80's are way better than present day "digital camera" lenses.
One thing I see lately, is that young people are fooled by today's "advanced" digital phoyography lens... but the truth is that MOST older 35 mm SLR lenses were MUCH better (and less expensive) than today's lenses. The only areas where today's lenses are better, are the capability of auto focusing, and some Image Stabilized lenses.
Otherwise, lenses made during the 70'sand 80's are way better than present day "digital camera" lenses.
Nov 20, 2009. 1:14 PMlowercase (author)
says:
I agree with you amclaussen, 35mm SLR older lenses are great, I try to keep my lenses and use them with my DSLR. but as Phil B said, the simple meniscus lenses of this Box cameras are not as good...
...but perfect for this lo-fi images.
...but perfect for this lo-fi images.
Nov 13, 2009. 6:35 AMlowercase (author)
says:
I really think that grain, lo-fi quality and light leaks are just part of all this. I'd be sad if there were no light leaks in my photos, I like them, but of course you can do a lot of stuff if that bothers you.
Nov 12, 2009. 7:46 PMlowercase (author)
says:
you're right Phil B.
I forgot to mention that this is just for pure fun and maybe some nostalgia.
images will be blurry, with lots of light leaks but I suppose that anyone willing to attempt this is not aiming at clarity & detail, that's what properly calibrated DSLRs are for.
I forgot to mention that this is just for pure fun and maybe some nostalgia.
images will be blurry, with lots of light leaks but I suppose that anyone willing to attempt this is not aiming at clarity & detail, that's what properly calibrated DSLRs are for.
Nov 25, 2009. 9:38 AMtomdowntown
says:
So what dose the film look like after, or your prints, I'd love to see those.
Nov 25, 2009. 11:11 AMlowercase (author)
says:
Well, tomdowntown, step 10 is about the results, take a look at those images, or you can visit my flickr! photostream in the 'ible's intro.
Nov 19, 2009. 9:22 AMBusyHands
says:
Excellent idea! And a really terrific writeup with creative visuals. You rock!
Nov 19, 2009. 7:40 PMlowercase (author)
says:
Many thanks BusyHands!
I appreciate you comment a lot since english is not my primary language, I'm glad you liked it.
I appreciate you comment a lot since english is not my primary language, I'm glad you liked it.
Nov 19, 2009. 12:09 PMcpmilani
says:
Did you just take your film to a "one hour photo" to get it developed or did you do it yourself?
Nov 19, 2009. 12:31 PMlowercase (author)
says:
Yes cpmilani I took it to an "overnight photo" but just to get the negatives, I didn't ordered any prints.
Nov 19, 2009. 1:11 PMcpmilani
says:
ok cool thank you and thanks for the posting I'm really excited to try an use this old box camera I found. Also once you had the negatives did you just scan them or howd you go about getting them into a digital form, like which was your best outcome?
Nov 19, 2009. 6:34 PMlowercase (author)
says:
I just take pictures of my negatives against a softbox and then invert them in photoshop. but It's better to use a scanner.
Nov 19, 2009. 3:34 PMBluemini
says:
Your Instructabls is awesome!!!!!!!!!!
It is clear and precise, what program did you use to put these graphics o?
Now this would only come in handy if I had a Box Camera
It is clear and precise, what program did you use to put these graphics o?
Now this would only come in handy if I had a Box Camera
Nov 19, 2009. 5:09 PMlowercase (author)
says:
Thank you Bluemini
I put together the graphics and pictures in Adobe Illustrator.
I put together the graphics and pictures in Adobe Illustrator.
Nov 19, 2009. 1:43 PMhutchwilco
says:
very nice, I bought a box camera hoping to get film but found I couldn't this is exactly the kind of alternative I was waiting for. Thanks!
Nov 19, 2009. 5:04 AMharolzoidium
says:
I love you! Thank you! I'm been so financially frustrated by the cost of developing and scanning all my 12o films from my cameras! You are a life saver.
Nov 19, 2009. 6:43 AMlowercase (author)
says:
thank you harolzoidium
by the way, the negatives you see above are not scanned, just photographed with a normal DSLR and then inverted in Photoshop so that way you'll also save the cost of scanning them.
by the way, the negatives you see above are not scanned, just photographed with a normal DSLR and then inverted in Photoshop so that way you'll also save the cost of scanning them.
Nov 19, 2009. 7:07 AMharolzoidium
says:
so you photograph them over a light box? does it work with slide film?
Nov 19, 2009. 11:34 AMlowercase (author)
says:
sure, I place a strobe with a softbox behind a negative-glass sandwich held vertically with a ridiculous amount of paraphernalia. I know I should get a negative scanner but what the heck, that's what I have at the moment and I like the result and that DIY feeling.
It should be easier with slide film since you don't have to invert them in post.
It should be easier with slide film since you don't have to invert them in post.
Nov 19, 2009. 9:51 AMamorfo
says:
justo lo que buscaba!
las fotografías quedaron preciosas.
fácil y casero.
las fotografías quedaron preciosas.
fácil y casero.
Nov 17, 2009. 7:03 PMkatmckee
says:
this looks easy and creative. I'll try it with my box camera... if I can find it. Thanks for the great instructable and amazing results!
 |
