On 17/05/2022 05:45, 25.BX945 wrote:
> On 5/16/22 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>
>>>    I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>    any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>    be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>    making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>    they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>
>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>
>   Well, in a cartridge ...
>
>   620 however had an opaque paper backing, and the
>   film was literally taped to it at either end.
>   You watched the frame numbers go by in the little
>   round red window on the back of the camera.
>
As you did with 120 film

I had an ex WW2 folding camera that took either, as it had slightly
stepped drivers to engage with either spool type. You could also fit a
half frame mask and get 16 smaller negatives out of it. In this case the
number was exposed in one window, and then wound on to a second window.

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Old_Cameras-120.html

suggests 120 film is still made with backing paper .

Indeed it must be, as otherwise the spool will expose once out of te
camera and you could only load/unload in a darkroom

>   So, to replicate 620 you'd have to make your own
>   version of the opaque paper backing (and get the
>   thickness right). 620 film itself was more like
>   220, physically thinner than 120 and a tad prone
>   to droop in regular cut-plate enlarger film
>   holders.
>
>   Some MIGHT have some of those old paper backings
>   lying around - but MOST just threw them away.
>   Usually Kodak yellow robust paper with some REALLY
>   black black stuff on one side.
>
>   So, for now, 620 is not entirely out of reach, but
>   you'll have to reach way way up on the top shelf,
>   so to speak. Eventually, 120/220 are gonna go away
>   alas ......
>
>   Still pissed nobody made a proper digital back for
>   my Pentax 6x7. More of them were made than the
>   subsequent P67s ..... 60-80 megapixel oughtta do ...
>   is it SO much to ask ?  :-)
>
>   Now 6x6 Blads - all you want - but at $$$$$$$$$$$

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 17/05/2022 06:29, 25.BX945 wrote:
> On 5/16/22 7:49 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-05-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>
>>>>     I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>     any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>     be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>     making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>     they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>
>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>
>> A different spool, IIRC.  My father's camera took 620,
>> which came on a spool.  It looked to be the same size
>> as 120 - I couldn't figure out why one film was almost
>> exactly unlike the other (thank you, Douglas Adams).
>
>   620, thickness of 220, was meant for older-style cheaper
>   cameras and was taped to an opaque paper backing. You
>   threaded it, rolled it through, and then sent the take-up
>   spool to the lab. 120/220 comes in a cassette, 35mm on
>   steroids. You thread, shoot, then REWIND it into the
>   cassette.

No, I don't think it does.

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film/products/lomography-berlin-kino-film-120-b-w-iso-400

is not a cassette - it is a spool of paper backed film.,

>
>   Anyway, it worked well enough ... but over half the
>   thickness of the spool was the paper backing, thus
>   usually limiting you to 12 exposures per roll.
>
8, or 16 with a half frame mask

>   There were some odd cameras that took 620 that had
>   good lenses and were as sharp as any more expensive
>   medium-format (though the f-number of the lenses was
>   usually inferior). "Brownies" and their ilk had kinda
>   crappy lenses, "good enough" for consumer snaps. The
>   larger format helped hide the lens lackings.
>
My late fathers Zeiss Ikonta took remarkable pictures.

<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165482903689> is the exact model

I showed you an image of an aircraft earlier in the thread.

This picture would have been shot with that make of camera on 120 film.

<http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/15.%20P.O%20M%20Shepherd%20RAAF,%20Self,%20Sgt%20H%20Cargill%20RAAF%20XI%20Squadron%20Bengal%20May%201943.png>

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 5/17/22 6:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/05/2022 06:29, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> On 5/16/22 7:49 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>     any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>     be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>     making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>     they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>
>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>
>>> A different spool, IIRC.  My father's camera took 620,
>>> which came on a spool.  It looked to be the same size
>>> as 120 - I couldn't figure out why one film was almost
>>> exactly unlike the other (thank you, Douglas Adams).
>>
>>    620, thickness of 220, was meant for older-style cheaper
>>    cameras and was taped to an opaque paper backing. You
>>    threaded it, rolled it through, and then sent the take-up
>>    spool to the lab. 120/220 comes in a cassette, 35mm on
>>    steroids. You thread, shoot, then REWIND it into the
>>    cassette.
>
> No, I don't think it does.
>
> https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film/products/lomography-berlin-kino-film-120-b-w-iso-400
>
>
> is not a cassette - it is a spool of paper backed film.,

120/220 is NOT paper-backed. I don't know if "cassette"
is the perfect term, but basically 120/220 goes into a
holder that looks like an oversized 35mm cartridge. I
own a device for reloading those cartridges from bulk
rolls of 120/220. (ok, you have to buy pop-top versions
of the cartridges ...)

620 IS (was) a paper-backed format. You had to peel
the film off the backing - held on with surprisingly
sticky tape.

>>    Anyway, it worked well enough ... but over half the
>>    thickness of the spool was the paper backing, thus
>>    usually limiting you to 12 exposures per roll.
>>
> 8, or 16 with a half frame mask

Well, 620 was always full-frame. You just wound it
until the next number came up in the little round
red window in the back. Once you got to 120/220
some cameras did offer half-frame - basically
60mmX35mm vertical. However 6x6, 6x7 and 6x45mm
were the most common standards. The Blads 6x6
and Mamiya 645s were always extremely popular.

>>    There were some odd cameras that took 620 that had
>>    good lenses and were as sharp as any more expensive
>>    medium-format (though the f-number of the lenses was
>>    usually inferior). "Brownies" and their ilk had kinda
>>    crappy lenses, "good enough" for consumer snaps. The
>>    larger format helped hide the lens lackings.
>>
> My late fathers Zeiss Ikonta took remarkable pictures.

> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165482903689> is the exact model

A 6x9 vertical ??? Kinda rare - but I've seen negatives.
According to a source :
"The A, B, & C size took 120 film. The A, B, & C produced
negatives in 6x4.5 format, 6x6 format, and 6x9 format,
respectively. The Ikonta D produced larger negatives on
either 116 or 616 format film, respectively"

I've never actually held any 116 or 616 film. But according
to another source :
"116 is a roll film introduced by Eastman Kodak in 1899
for 2½×4¼ inch negatives[1] (nominally 6.5×11 cm). The
film stock is 70mm wide: wider than that of 120 film.
Early Ansco film in 116 size was called "6", appended
with either an "A" for six exposure rolls, or "B" for
twelve exposure rolls (thus "6A" or "6B"). The Gavaert
film size equivalent to 116 was "G.16" (eight exposures).
In 1932, Kodak introduced 616 film.[1] This has a slightly
slimmer spool (originally metal rather than wood). Agfa/Ansco
gave the 616 size their own designation PD16. Kodak
discontinued both 116 and 616 in 1984."

Guess since I never found a 116/616 camera I never bothered
to buy any of the film. Odd size by the 80s for sure. 6.5x11
almost qualifies as "large format". However 120 and 70mm are
still widely available. 70mm is common in pro (film) movie
cameras. A smart director will take digital AND film at the
same time.

A guy I met had a surplus US Army/Air-Force aerial surveillance
camera that took 4x5" ROLL FILM. A big bulky thing with an
electric-motor drive and a good lens set at infinity. I think
you can still get 4x5" roll film on special order.

Some of those old fold-up bellows cameras had great sharp
lenses (though oft with inferior/no anti-refection coating).
The main issue was that the lenses had to be kinda small
to fit the package so you lost a few f-stops over a modern
large-format len$. My 4x5 press cam takes superb photos,
but not RAPID photos. Even have the flash unit, but nobody
makes the bulbs anymore alas. Could fake it, but that'd
be "un-genuine" ......

A certain percentage of those old 3/4 / 1" press camera
flashbulbs (magnesium wool in oxygen) would literally
explode when you lit 'em ... I can see why they took
to coating them in plastic once plastic had been
invented. Sizzle-Pop ! :-)

Anyway, IF used with a decent lens, the medium/large
format cameras yield superior images. The megapixel
equiv is hard to find (and EXTREMELY expensive if
you can). You're talking sensors like used in
astronomy/Hubble apps. Innate Rayleigh/diffraction
limits restrict what you can put on tiny sensors.
But if you use LARGE sensors ..... LARGE images ....

> I showed you an image of an aircraft earlier in the thread.
>
> This picture would have been shot with that make of camera on 120 film.
>
> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/15.%20P.O%20M%20Shepherd%20RAAF,%20Self,%20Sgt%20H%20Cargill%20RAAF%20XI%20Squadron%20Bengal%20May%201943.png>

Yep - 6x9 vertical. DID have its hey-day.

I know a guy whose dad took many of those early A-Bomb test
photos. Now THERE was a challenge. 1/10,000th to 1/1,000,000th
exposures on large format and the cameras were usually FRIED
immediately thereafter. Protecting the film ... not entirely
sure how it was accomplished. Mirror relays to an insulated
lead-lined focal plane with gold thermal coatings somewhere
inbetween ??? Worlds biggest flashbulbs.

On 5/17/22 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/05/2022 05:45, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> On 5/16/22 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>
>>>>    I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>    any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>    be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>    making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>    they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>
>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>
>>    Well, in a cartridge ...
>>
>>    620 however had an opaque paper backing, and the
>>    film was literally taped to it at either end.
>>    You watched the frame numbers go by in the little
>>    round red window on the back of the camera.
>>
> As you did with 120 film

Nope. Check.

120/220 is wound into a metal cartridge. You get
the frame number by a mechanical counter - and
generally one or two cycles of the frame-advance
lever is one frame and then it cuts out until
you shoot the photo. It's bare film being dragged
across the focal plane.

"Consumer" film generally had the paper backing.
You wound it onto the take-up spool and then sent
that to the lab. The old source spool then became
your new take-up spool.

I've GOT these old cameras (in boxes now) and USED
them extensively since my teens. Take my word for it.

>
> I had an ex WW2 folding camera that took either, as it had slightly
> stepped drivers to engage with either spool type. You could also fit a
> half frame mask and get 16 smaller negatives out of it. In this case the
>  number was exposed in one window, and then wound on to a second window.
>
> http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Old_Cameras-120.html
>
> suggests 120 film is still made with backing paper .

The PHYSICAL size, maybe. But it wouldn't have been
called 120/220. That's "naked" film like 35mm.

>
> Indeed it must be, as otherwise the spool will expose once out of te
> camera and you could only load/unload in a darkroom

120/220, like 35mm, has to be re-wound back into
its cartridge after use. Then it's safe to unload.

The paper-backed was safe to unload because of the
opaque paper backing - there'd usually be several
layers of paper covering the actual film on the
take-up reel.

Were there cameras that used naked film and you'd
HAVE to unload the take-up spool in the dark ?
Seems very inconvenient/unsafe. Basically you'd
only be able to shoot ONE roll in the field unless
you had one of those big black "changing bags".
(I have one - for getting the film out-of/into
4x5 film holders).

I admit to being intrigued by an "odd" large-format,
the 5x7" ... JUST small enough to still make a
convenient field camera, but with 175% the film
area. When I retire I might just MAKE one ....
A good, not TOO tight, 4x5 lens oughtta work.
Seems ideal for landscape work. 8x10 is just
TOO big a camera.

I've done a handfull of photos with an 8x10, but
it's a royal bitch. The camera is huge, the negs
are huge, and if you wanna do enlargements you
need a huge, horizontal, enlarger. Can't use a
standard vertical enlarger because the film will
droop too much in the gate. Well, glass-plate
gates will work, but there's usually an issue
with interference rings where the film contacts
the glass .......

Hmm ... I guess you could make your own glass
plate "film" like in the olden days ... THAT
would be rigid ....... silver chloride+bromide,
mixed with gelatin hand coated, ISO-10 ... a JOB ! :-)

>
>>    So, to replicate 620 you'd have to make your own
>>    version of the opaque paper backing (and get the
>>    thickness right). 620 film itself was more like
>>    220, physically thinner than 120 and a tad prone
>>    to droop in regular cut-plate enlarger film
>>    holders.
>>
>>    Some MIGHT have some of those old paper backings
>>    lying around - but MOST just threw them away.
>>    Usually Kodak yellow robust paper with some REALLY
>>    black black stuff on one side.
>>
>>    So, for now, 620 is not entirely out of reach, but
>>    you'll have to reach way way up on the top shelf,
>>    so to speak. Eventually, 120/220 are gonna go away
>>    alas ......
>>
>>    Still pissed nobody made a proper digital back for
>>    my Pentax 6x7. More of them were made than the
>>    subsequent P67s ..... 60-80 megapixel oughtta do ...
>>    is it SO much to ask ?  :-)
>>
>>    Now 6x6 Blads - all you want - but at $$$$$$$$$$$

On 18/05/2022 06:21, 25.BX945 wrote:
> On 5/17/22 6:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/05/2022 06:29, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>> On 5/16/22 7:49 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>     any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>     be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>     making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>     they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>
>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>
>>>> A different spool, IIRC.  My father's camera took 620,
>>>> which came on a spool.  It looked to be the same size
>>>> as 120 - I couldn't figure out why one film was almost
>>>> exactly unlike the other (thank you, Douglas Adams).
>>>
>>>    620, thickness of 220, was meant for older-style cheaper
>>>    cameras and was taped to an opaque paper backing. You
>>>    threaded it, rolled it through, and then sent the take-up
>>>    spool to the lab. 120/220 comes in a cassette, 35mm on
>>>    steroids. You thread, shoot, then REWIND it into the
>>>    cassette.
>>
>> No, I don't think it does.
>>
>> https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film/products/lomography-berlin-kino-film-120-b-w-iso-400
>>
>>
>> is not a cassette - it is a spool of paper backed film.,
>
>
>   120/220 is NOT paper-backed. I don't know if "cassette"
>   is the perfect term, but basically 120/220 goes into a
>   holder that looks like an oversized 35mm cartridge. I
>   own a device for reloading those cartridges from bulk
>   rolls of 120/220. (ok, you have to buy pop-top versions
>   of the cartridges ...)
>
Well I used 120 film for about 20 years and it was all paper backed and
came on a spool like in those links I posted

>   620 IS (was) a paper-backed format. You had to peel
>   the film off the backing - held on with surprisingly
>   sticky tape.
>
>
>>>    Anyway, it worked well enough ... but over half the
>>>    thickness of the spool was the paper backing, thus
>>>    usually limiting you to 12 exposures per roll.
>>>
>> 8, or 16 with a half frame mask
>
>
>   Well, 620 was always full-frame. You just wound it
>   until the next number came up in the little round
>   red window in the back. Once you got to 120/220
>   some cameras did offer half-frame - basically
>   60mmX35mm vertical. However 6x6, 6x7 and 6x45mm
>   were the most common standards. The Blads 6x6
>   and Mamiya 645s were always extremely popular.
>
>
You have no idea at all, have you. 120 or 620 - no one cared - they both
fitted, both came paper backed on spools and both had the numbers on the
back

The half frame cameras has two windows so the same number gotr exposed
'twice' one half at a time

>>>    There were some odd cameras that took 620 that had
>>>    good lenses and were as sharp as any more expensive
>>>    medium-format (though the f-number of the lenses was
>>>    usually inferior). "Brownies" and their ilk had kinda
>>>    crappy lenses, "good enough" for consumer snaps. The
>>>    larger format helped hide the lens lackings.
>>>
>> My late fathers Zeiss Ikonta took remarkable pictures.
>
>> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165482903689> is the exact model
>
>
>   A 6x9 vertical ??? Kinda rare - but I've seen negatives.
>   According to a source :
>   "The A, B, & C size took 120 film. The A, B, & C produced
>   negatives in 6x4.5 format, 6x6 format, and 6x9 format,

Well that camera, looking at the negatives here on my desk was a bit
smaller than 6x9 or 6x4.5 in half frame mode.

You turned the camera on its side to take landscape mode . Same as you
do with a 35mm

And yes, it took 120 (or 620) film, on spools, paper backed with numbers,.

>> I showed you an image of an aircraft earlier in the thread.
>>
>> This picture would have been shot with that make of camera on 120 film.
>>
>> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/15.%20P.O%20M%20Shepherd%20RAAF,%20Self,%20Sgt%20H%20Cargill%20RAAF%20XI%20Squadron%20Bengal%20May%201943.png>
>
>
>   Yep - 6x9 vertical. DID have its hey-day.

Turn the camera sideways and you have 6x9 landscape
<http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/22%20-%20Hawker%20Audax%20Habbaniyah%20Iraq%201941.png>

The point is that camera took 120 as did all our box cameras - not 620.
620 was rather rarer.

And the film all came paper backed tightly wound on a spool with numbers
on the back.

I am sure you can get for some medium format cameras a cassette loaded
with 120 sized film., but that is not the way it was sold in the 40s 50s
and 60s

Please educate yourself by watching how 120 film is sold, and how its
loaded - with backing paper - into a vintage camera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_oSKKOe3U

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 18/05/2022 07:02, 25.BX945 wrote:
> On 5/17/22 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/05/2022 05:45, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>> On 5/16/22 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>    I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>    any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>    be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>    making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>    they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>
>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>
>>>    Well, in a cartridge ...
>>>
>>>    620 however had an opaque paper backing, and the
>>>    film was literally taped to it at either end.
>>>    You watched the frame numbers go by in the little
>>>    round red window on the back of the camera.
>>>
>> As you did with 120 film
>
>
>   Nope. Check.
>
Yep. Check the you tube video I linked

Please dont persist with this willy waving lying. I was there. I used
120 film, I bought it, I loaded into into box cameras, brownies and my
dads Ikonta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_oSKKOe3U
Showing what 120 film is and how to load it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1KM44CiwoQ
showing that 120 film and 620 film are *identical*, only the spool size
is slightly different. All the cameras I owned would take either spool size.

>   120/220 is wound into a metal cartridge.

It is not.

You get
>   the frame number by a mechanical counter - and
>   generally one or two cycles of the frame-advance
>   lever is one frame and then it cuts out until
>   you shoot the photo. It's bare film being dragged
>   across the focal plane.
>
That is not 120 film as generally sold

>   "Consumer" film generally had the paper backing.
>   You wound it onto the take-up spool and then sent
>   that to the lab. The old source spool then became
>   your new take-up spool.
>
>   I've GOT these old cameras (in boxes now) and USED
>   them extensively since my teens. Take my word for it.
>
So have I.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 5/18/22 6:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 06:21, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> On 5/17/22 6:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 06:29, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/22 7:49 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>>     any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>>     be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>>     making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>>     they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>>
>>>>> A different spool, IIRC.  My father's camera took 620,
>>>>> which came on a spool.  It looked to be the same size
>>>>> as 120 - I couldn't figure out why one film was almost
>>>>> exactly unlike the other (thank you, Douglas Adams).
>>>>
>>>>    620, thickness of 220, was meant for older-style cheaper
>>>>    cameras and was taped to an opaque paper backing. You
>>>>    threaded it, rolled it through, and then sent the take-up
>>>>    spool to the lab. 120/220 comes in a cassette, 35mm on
>>>>    steroids. You thread, shoot, then REWIND it into the
>>>>    cassette.
>>>
>>> No, I don't think it does.
>>>
>>> https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film/products/lomography-berlin-kino-film-120-b-w-iso-400
>>>
>>>
>>> is not a cassette - it is a spool of paper backed film.,
>>
>>
>>    120/220 is NOT paper-backed. I don't know if "cassette"
>>    is the perfect term, but basically 120/220 goes into a
>>    holder that looks like an oversized 35mm cartridge. I
>>    own a device for reloading those cartridges from bulk
>>    rolls of 120/220. (ok, you have to buy pop-top versions
>>    of the cartridges ...)
>>
> Well I used 120 film for about 20 years and it was all paper backed and
> came on a spool like in those links I posted

??? Somehow we're having opposite experiences here with
what's supposed to be the same product. Very mysterious.

As soon as I started using 220 I bought a bulk loader
and used that exclusively. Maybe my memory is kinda
contaminated because of that. The 35mm-like cassettes
might have come with the bulk-loader kit ....

Ah HA ... WikiPedia to the rescue.120 DID come with
a full-length paper backing just like 620. But, for
convenience, I initially used 220 which gave twice as
many exposures. Store-bought 220 is "naked" BUT has
a paper leader/tail to keep the light out.

Anyway, this shows how long it's been since I've used
chemical photography. I don't have any of the equipment
anymore and don't wanna pay big $$$ to send the big
negs off to a lab.

Oh, I do remember one tiny detail - you generally
can't shove a roll of 120 into a 620 camera. I've
got a WikiPedia link and quote further down. The
120 spool is larger in diameter and maybe 1mm taller.
SOME 620 cameras might have had the room, but none
I'd ever put my hands on.

Side-by-side photo of 120 & 620 spools :
https://thedarkroom.com/app/uploads/2020/06/120-and-620-film-spool.gif

That site says you MUST manually rewind 120 film onto
a 620 spool - but again some cameras may have been made
to accommodate both. 620 into a 120 camera would probably
work, but not so much the other way around.

>>    620 IS (was) a paper-backed format. You had to peel
>>    the film off the backing - held on with surprisingly
>>    sticky tape.
>>
>>
>>>>    Anyway, it worked well enough ... but over half the
>>>>    thickness of the spool was the paper backing, thus
>>>>    usually limiting you to 12 exposures per roll.
>>>>
>>> 8, or 16 with a half frame mask
>>
>>
>>    Well, 620 was always full-frame. You just wound it
>>    until the next number came up in the little round
>>    red window in the back. Once you got to 120/220
>>    some cameras did offer half-frame - basically
>>    60mmX35mm vertical. However 6x6, 6x7 and 6x45mm
>>    were the most common standards. The Blads 6x6
>>    and Mamiya 645s were always extremely popular.
>>
>>
> You have no idea at all, have you. 120 or 620 - no one cared - they both
> fitted, both came paper backed on spools and both had the numbers on the
> back
>
> The half frame cameras has two windows so the same number gotr exposed
> 'twice' one half at a time

See above, the spools WERE very slightly different
in size. Sometimes this might be an issue, sometimes
not, depending on the target camera.

>>>>    There were some odd cameras that took 620 that had
>>>>    good lenses and were as sharp as any more expensive
>>>>    medium-format (though the f-number of the lenses was
>>>>    usually inferior). "Brownies" and their ilk had kinda
>>>>    crappy lenses, "good enough" for consumer snaps. The
>>>>    larger format helped hide the lens lackings.
>>>>
>>> My late fathers Zeiss Ikonta took remarkable pictures.
>>
>>> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165482903689> is the exact model
>>
>>
>>    A 6x9 vertical ??? Kinda rare - but I've seen negatives.
>>    According to a source :
>>    "The A, B, & C size took 120 film. The A, B, & C produced
>>    negatives in 6x4.5 format, 6x6 format, and 6x9 format,
>
> Well that camera, looking at the negatives here on my desk was a bit
> smaller than 6x9 or 6x4.5 in half frame mode.
>
> You turned the camera on its side to take landscape mode .  Same as you
> do with a 35mm
>
> And yes, it took 120 (or 620) film, on spools, paper backed with numbers,.

According to that WP article, some cameras were set
up to produce up to 6x24 negs. I think I've seen some
prints - always "group photos" like the Graduating
Class or The Club.

Still saying ... it was easier to put 620 in a 120
camera than the other way around. The more expensive
the camera likely the more exacting the size tolerances.

Ah ... WP again :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

"The 620 format was introduced by Kodak in 1931 as an
intended alternative to 120. Although mostly used by
Kodak cameras, it became very popular. The 620 format
is essentially the same film on a thinner and narrower
all-metal spool (the 120 spool core was made of wood
at that time)"

>>> I showed you an image of an aircraft earlier in the thread.
>>>
>>> This picture would have been shot with that make of camera on 120 film.
>>>
>>> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/15.%20P.O%20M%20Shepherd%20RAAF,%20Self,%20Sgt%20H%20Cargill%20RAAF%20XI%20Squadron%20Bengal%20May%201943.png>
>>
>>
>>
>>    Yep - 6x9 vertical. DID have its hey-day.
>
> Turn the camera sideways and you have 6x9 landscape
> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/22%20-%20Hawker%20Audax%20Habbaniyah%20Iraq%201941.png>
>
>
> The point is that camera took 120 as did all our box cameras - not 620.
> 620 was rather rarer.

At the time of the photo ... probably true. But from 1945
to maybe 1965 the 620 format was extremely common for those
'consumer grade' cameras. Mid 60s saw a big swing towards
35mm because all the "cool people" were snapping away with
them by then and the grittier-looking snaps gained a certain
aesthetic/"more real" popularity. Then we saw compact 127
cartridge cameras for the low-end market - zillions of them.
Auntie Em would always have a 127 in her purse with the
rotating flash-cube on top. People always used the flash
even in gigantic stadiums ......

> And the film all came paper backed tightly wound on a spool with numbers
> on the back.
>
> I am sure you can get for some medium format cameras a cassette loaded
> with 120 sized film., but that is not the way it was sold in the 40s 50s
> and 60s
>
> Please educate yourself by watching how 120 film is sold, and how its
> loaded  - with backing paper - into a vintage camera
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_oSKKOe3U
>

On 5/18/22 6:41 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 07:02, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> On 5/17/22 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2022 05:45, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/22 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>    any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>    be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>    making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>    they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>
>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>
>>>>    Well, in a cartridge ...
>>>>
>>>>    620 however had an opaque paper backing, and the
>>>>    film was literally taped to it at either end.
>>>>    You watched the frame numbers go by in the little
>>>>    round red window on the back of the camera.
>>>>
>>> As you did with 120 film
>>
>>
>>    Nope. Check.
>>
> Yep. Check the you tube video I linked
>
> Please dont persist with this willy waving lying.

You ARE a contentious person .... :-)

Please explain my motive in lying about film
sizes.

And my other post explains why you cannot just shove
a 120/200 roll into a 620 camera.

DID find a place that sells 620 film - modern stock
like T-Max and such would onto modern plastic 620
spools. Like $15 A ROLL !!!

On 18/05/2022 16:46, 25.BX945 wrote:
> On 5/18/22 6:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 06:21, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>> On 5/17/22 6:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2022 06:29, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/22 7:49 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>>>     any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>>>     be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>>>     making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>>>     they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A different spool, IIRC.  My father's camera took 620,
>>>>>> which came on a spool.  It looked to be the same size
>>>>>> as 120 - I couldn't figure out why one film was almost
>>>>>> exactly unlike the other (thank you, Douglas Adams).
>>>>>
>>>>>    620, thickness of 220, was meant for older-style cheaper
>>>>>    cameras and was taped to an opaque paper backing. You
>>>>>    threaded it, rolled it through, and then sent the take-up
>>>>>    spool to the lab. 120/220 comes in a cassette, 35mm on
>>>>>    steroids. You thread, shoot, then REWIND it into the
>>>>>    cassette.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think it does.
>>>>
>>>> https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/120-film/products/lomography-berlin-kino-film-120-b-w-iso-400
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> is not a cassette - it is a spool of paper backed film.,
>>>
>>>
>>>    120/220 is NOT paper-backed. I don't know if "cassette"
>>>    is the perfect term, but basically 120/220 goes into a
>>>    holder that looks like an oversized 35mm cartridge. I
>>>    own a device for reloading those cartridges from bulk
>>>    rolls of 120/220. (ok, you have to buy pop-top versions
>>>    of the cartridges ...)
>>>
>> Well I used 120 film for about 20 years and it was all paper backed
>> and came on a spool like in those links I posted
>
>
>  ??? Somehow we're having opposite experiences here with
>  what's supposed to be the same product. Very mysterious.
>
>   As soon as I started using 220 I bought a bulk loader
>   and used that exclusively. Maybe my memory is kinda
>   contaminated because of that. The 35mm-like cassettes
>   might have come with the bulk-loader kit ....
>

220 film is not 120 film

>   Ah HA ... WikiPedia to the rescue.120 DID come with
>   a full-length paper backing just like 620. But, for
>   convenience, I initially used 220 which gave twice as
>   many exposures. Store-bought 220 is "naked" BUT has
>   a paper leader/tail to keep the light out.
>
Probably. Never used it

>   Anyway, this shows how long it's been since I've used
>   chemical photography. I don't have any of the equipment
>   anymore and don't wanna pay big $$$ to send the big
>   negs off to a lab.
>
>   Oh, I do remember one tiny detail - you generally
>   can't shove a roll of 120 into a 620 camera. I've
>   got a WikiPedia link and quote further down. The
>   120 spool is larger in diameter and maybe 1mm taller.
>   SOME 620 cameras might have had the room, but none
>   I'd ever put my hands on.
>
Correct,620 film was fine in a 120 camera, but not t'other way about.

>   Side-by-side photo of 120 & 620 spools :
>   https://thedarkroom.com/app/uploads/2020/06/120-and-620-film-spool.gif
>
>   That site says you MUST manually rewind 120 film onto
>   a 620 spool - but again some cameras may have been made
>   to accommodate both. 620 into a 120 camera would probably
>   work, but not so much the other way around.
>
>
>>>    620 IS (was) a paper-backed format. You had to peel
>>>    the film off the backing - held on with surprisingly
>>>    sticky tape.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>    Anyway, it worked well enough ... but over half the
>>>>>    thickness of the spool was the paper backing, thus
>>>>>    usually limiting you to 12 exposures per roll.
>>>>>
>>>> 8, or 16 with a half frame mask
>>>
>>>
>>>    Well, 620 was always full-frame. You just wound it
>>>    until the next number came up in the little round
>>>    red window in the back. Once you got to 120/220
>>>    some cameras did offer half-frame - basically
>>>    60mmX35mm vertical. However 6x6, 6x7 and 6x45mm
>>>    were the most common standards. The Blads 6x6
>>>    and Mamiya 645s were always extremely popular.
>>>
>>>
>> You have no idea at all, have you. 120 or 620 - no one cared - they
>> both fitted, both came paper backed on spools and both had the numbers
>> on the back
>>
>> The half frame cameras has two windows so the same number gotr exposed
>> 'twice' one half at a time
>
>
>   See above, the spools WERE very slightly different
>   in size. Sometimes this might be an issue, sometimes
>   not, depending on the target camera.
>
>
>>>>>    There were some odd cameras that took 620 that had
>>>>>    good lenses and were as sharp as any more expensive
>>>>>    medium-format (though the f-number of the lenses was
>>>>>    usually inferior). "Brownies" and their ilk had kinda
>>>>>    crappy lenses, "good enough" for consumer snaps. The
>>>>>    larger format helped hide the lens lackings.
>>>>>
>>>> My late fathers Zeiss Ikonta took remarkable pictures.
>>>
>>>> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/165482903689> is the exact model
>>>
>>>
>>>    A 6x9 vertical ??? Kinda rare - but I've seen negatives.
>>>    According to a source :
>>>    "The A, B, & C size took 120 film. The A, B, & C produced
>>>    negatives in 6x4.5 format, 6x6 format, and 6x9 format,
>>
>> Well that camera, looking at the negatives here on my desk was a bit
>> smaller than 6x9 or 6x4.5 in half frame mode.
>>
>> You turned the camera on its side to take landscape mode .  Same as
>> you do with a 35mm
>>
>> And yes, it took 120 (or 620) film, on spools, paper backed with
>> numbers,.
>
>
>   According to that WP article, some cameras were set
>   up to produce up to 6x24 negs. I think I've seen some
>   prints - always "group photos" like the Graduating
>   Class or The Club.
>
Panoramic cameras with a curved focal plane, or the ones that expose
usin a slit and rotated the camera on te tripod

>   Still saying ... it was easier to put 620 in a 120
>   camera than the other way around. The more expensive
>   the camera likely the more exacting the size tolerances.
>
>   Ah ... WP again :
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
>
>   "The 620 format was introduced by Kodak in 1931 as an
>   intended alternative to 120. Although mostly used by
>   Kodak cameras, it became very popular. The 620 format
>   is essentially the same film on a thinner and narrower
>   all-metal spool (the 120 spool core was made of wood
>   at that time)"
>
Prezactly. I always had cameras that took either. We bought 620 film
sometimes because the local shops had it as it would fit both sorts of
cameras

>
>>>> I showed you an image of an aircraft earlier in the thread.
>>>>
>>>> This picture would have been shot with that make of camera on 120 film.
>>>>
>>>> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/15.%20P.O%20M%20Shepherd%20RAAF,%20Self,%20Sgt%20H%20Cargill%20RAAF%20XI%20Squadron%20Bengal%20May%201943.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    Yep - 6x9 vertical. DID have its hey-day.
>>
>> Turn the camera sideways and you have 6x9 landscape
>> <http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/22%20-%20Hawker%20Audax%20Habbaniyah%20Iraq%201941.png>
>>
>>
>> The point is that camera took 120 as did all our box cameras - not
>> 620. 620 was rather rarer.
>
>   At the time of the photo ... probably true. But from 1945
>   to maybe 1965 the 620 format was extremely common for those
>   'consumer grade' cameras.

On 18/05/2022 16:52, 25.BX945 wrote:
> On 5/18/22 6:41 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 07:02, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>> On 5/17/22 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2022 05:45, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/22 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>>    any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>>    be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>>    making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>>    they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>>
>>>>>    Well, in a cartridge ...
>>>>>
>>>>>    620 however had an opaque paper backing, and the
>>>>>    film was literally taped to it at either end.
>>>>>    You watched the frame numbers go by in the little
>>>>>    round red window on the back of the camera.
>>>>>
>>>> As you did with 120 film
>>>
>>>
>>>    Nope. Check.
>>>
>> Yep. Check the you tube video I linked
>>
>> Please dont persist with this willy waving lying.
>
>
>
>   You ARE a contentious person ....  :-)
>
>   Please explain my motive in lying about film
>   sizes.
>
People dont like to be wong
#

>   And my other post explains why you cannot just shove
>   a 120/200 roll into a 620 camera.

I never claimed you could.

You said 120 film didn't come with paper backing on a spool,only 620
did. I said that 120- and 620 both came on spools with paper backing.
And that the *film* was the same., only the spools differed,

>
>   DID find a place that sells 620 film - modern stock
>   like T-Max and such would onto modern plastic 620
>   spools. Like $15 A ROLL !!!

Not worth it at that price. No one uses 620 because the cameras that
used it were cheap junk by and large. 120 film is still used in medium
format I believe.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 2022-05-18, 25.BX945 <25BZ495@nada.net> wrote:

> On 5/18/22 6:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Well I used 120 film for about 20 years and it was all paper backed
>> and came on a spool like in those links I posted
>
> ??? Somehow we're having opposite experiences here with
> what's supposed to be the same product. Very mysterious.

Sounds like you had an alternative - and probably less standard -
usage. I didn't see much 120 but I recall it was like this:

> Side-by-side photo of 120 & 620 spools :
> https://thedarkroom.com/app/uploads/2020/06/120-and-620-film-spool.gif

>> The point is that camera took 120 as did all our box cameras - not 620.
>> 620 was rather rarer.
>
> At the time of the photo ... probably true. But from 1945
> to maybe 1965 the 620 format was extremely common for those
> 'consumer grade' cameras.

I still remember my father's camera from the '50s: a reflex model
that took 620. Consumer grade, but with snob appeal. :-)

> Mid 60s saw a big swing towards
> 35mm because all the "cool people" were snapping away with
> them by then and the grittier-looking snaps gained a certain
> aesthetic/"more real" popularity. Then we saw compact 127
> cartridge cameras for the low-end market - zillions of them.
> Auntie Em would always have a 127 in her purse with the
> rotating flash-cube on top. People always used the flash
> even in gigantic stadiums ......

The one that amuses me these days is fireworks displays.
Each burst is followed by hundreds of flashes to... uh...
make it brighter? Dunno...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote, in reply to 25.BX945:
> You have no idea at all, have you. 120 or 620 - no one cared - they
> both fitted, both came paper backed on spools and both had the numbers
> on the back
>
> The half frame cameras has two windows so the same number gotr exposed
> 'twice' one half at a time

It's been a long time since I've used film larger than 35mm. I remember
some paper backed film that that had two sets of numbers, so windows in
different positions could show correct exposure counts for different
sized photos. What was that?

(I have a half-frame Mercury Universal II, which is one of my favorite
cameras. It's 135 (35mm) though. The I version is 35mm not in 135
format.)

> You turned the camera on its side to take landscape mode . Same as
> you do with a 35mm

35mm is usually landscape by default, portrait turned on side. My
half-frame Universal II is not default.

> --
> Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
> But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

I think a lot of people criticise Marx for what people who are not
Marx said he said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

On 5/18/22 12:46 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/05/2022 16:52, 25.BX945 wrote:
>> On 5/18/22 6:41 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2022 07:02, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/22 6:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 17/05/2022 05:45, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/22 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/05/2022 05:22, 25.BX945 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I have an actual Brownie ... it's brown. Can't get
>>>>>>>>    any film for it anymore - but, in theory, it can
>>>>>>>>    be made from 120/220/70mm ... alas the trick is in
>>>>>>>>    making a compatible paper backing. I don't think
>>>>>>>>    they've made 620 since the mid 90s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 120 is still made, - its 620 on a spool
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Well, in a cartridge ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    620 however had an opaque paper backing, and the
>>>>>>    film was literally taped to it at either end.
>>>>>>    You watched the frame numbers go by in the little
>>>>>>    round red window on the back of the camera.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As you did with 120 film
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Nope. Check.
>>>>
>>> Yep. Check the you tube video I linked
>>>
>>> Please dont persist with this willy waving lying.
>>
>>
>>
>>    You ARE a contentious person ....  :-)
>>
>>    Please explain my motive in lying about film
>>    sizes.
>>
> People dont like to be wong
> #

Poor Wong ... never gets a break ! :-)

Actually, I like *facts* ... and some of yours jogged
my poor old memory. I like to *get it right* and am
NOT gonna invest in errors.

>>    And my other post explains why you cannot just shove
>>    a 120/200 roll into a 620 camera.
>
> I never claimed you could.
>
> You said 120 film didn't come with paper backing on a spool,only 620
> did. I said that 120- and 620 both came on spools with paper backing.
> And that the *film* was the same., only the spools differed,

I erred ... too long ago now ... 120 did have a full paper
backing, 220 didn't. I only used 220 because I wanted more
exposures. Then, almost immediately, I invested in a bulk
reloading system that used big 35mm-like film cartridges.

>>
>>    DID find a place that sells 620 film - modern stock
>>    like T-Max and such would onto modern plastic 620
>>    spools. Like $15 A ROLL !!!
>
> Not worth it at that price. No one uses 620 because the cameras that
> used it were cheap junk by and large. 120 film is still used in medium
> format I believe.

Most 620 cameras WERE junk - they were made for the
"mass consumer" market. 120/220 went to the pro
market - much smaller and less profitable (though
more prestigious).

Of course even "junk" cameras have a nostalgic value.
I wouldn't mind seeing the Brownie have a brief,
expensive, revival "just because". The pix weren't
all THAT horrible - actually the main issue was the
rather slow shutter speed and few bothered to steady
the camera before shooting. There were some low/mid-
range TLRs that took 620 also and they tended to have
better lenses and maybe two or three shutter/ap settings.

Now if I can just find one of those 6x24 cameras :-)
Bound to show up at a junk store of flea market if I
look long enough.

I think I did very briefly own something close to a
6x9 camera - euro (Czech?) - but it took a very odd
pre-WW2 film format I couldn't get, so I gave it away.

Still have my mom's 127 (roll) "pocket" camera. I think
you can still get that roll film. A couple of the 126
"InstaMatic"s with the plastic cartridge - those were
very popular back in the day - basically 35mm but I
seem to remember there were perfs only on one edge.

You've piqued my interest ... now I HAVE to look through
all my old junk boxes. KNOW I have a good Polaroid roll
film camera or two ... bellows, good lens, high-speed
B&W film rolls that are probably STILL good. Those made
a positive (hand-coat with fixer-preservative after)
AND a usable negative. A standard 8mm movie camera
that still hums. Some odd 35mm euro leaf cameras. An
old cheap TLR with a broken latch (rubber-bands work)
in 620. My newer expensive 35mm and medium-formats.
A 4x5 press camera (with flash unit) that takes good
pix (made a lens-board and bought an even better lens
that still lets you fold it all up). A 4x5 studio
camera. Gave away my 8x10 alas, too huge. A number
of digitals (though no SLR types, LOTS of those small
pocket types (they CAN take good pix too, buy one
every time they jump the rez)), one or two cartridge
Polaroids you can't get film for anymore .....

And then there's the computer junk - Vic-20, C-64
and Plus/4, Apple-IIe, ZX-80 and ZX-81 (with thermal
printer !), RS MC-10 (barely bigger than ZX-81),
Sanyo 550 semi-PC compatible, gave away Amiga 1000,
several 386/486 and orig PC board that still work,
core-2-quad board (still serves and WILL run 8-bit),
and a weird Heathkit LSI-11 computer with 8" floppy
unit (don't dare start it, needs all new caps fer sure,
DID run OS and FORTRAN & BASIC long back however),
TI-99/4a (too broke to afford the USCD Pascal x-box),
too broke to afford TRS-80m2 but would love to find
the latter-model TRS with the plug-in 68000 board,
got rid of Kaypro Z-80 "portable", probably some other
odd PC shit at the bottom of the boxes. Oh yea, one
of those original video-disk units where the disks
looked like LP phono records (have the un-edited
version of Apocalypse Now).

And all the electronics/microcontroller/Pi shit too.
PIC, Arduino, BeagleBone, Rabbit, some sub-mini Ard
compatibles, keypads, massive odd resistor collection
(including 100-watt ceramics), analog instruments,
CRT and digital scopes, about 20 odd lcd-character
units, 500 amp full-bridge rectfiers (ok, ok, there's
a surplus store not too far away), 250w-eqiv LED modules
+ power supplies, gen-1/2 night vision modules turned
into scopes ......................

Hell, I've got 65 years worth of crap from every
passion I've ever had - and that's been many. No
WAY I'm ever gonna get rid of it all - too too much.
I'll leave it to the relatives - they'll just LOVE
it I'm sure - when I'm dead :-)

(actually I expect a mysterious Molitov cocktail
incident ....)