This is topic A camera loaded with "mystery film." in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006029

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-21-2010, 11:43 PM:
 
If you remember, I was talking about getting my old camera repaired, just last week.

It's a Pentax Super Program.

I did some looking around and I couldn't find any place in town that would even touch it. If I sent it out of town it would cost a minimum of $130 to $150, plus parts, to do the work. That assumes they can get parts, even.

Pentax does not support this camera anymore.

Just on a hunch, I looked on eBay. I found one being offered for $40. I bid on it and won! I figured, even if the thing doesn't work, I can use it as a source of parts to build one working camera out of. Right?

Anyhow, the package came today. I fiddled around with it after dinner, this evening. As luck would have it, the camera seems to be in working condition! But a funny thing happened.

I cocked the shutter and the film rewind knob turned! Holy shit! There's film still in it! The frame counter says, "18." There must be at least 6 more frames of film left. There might even be 18 frames left. That's half a roll!

Just to be safe, I sent a message to the seller. Turns out she's one of those consignment stores like "iSold-It." She says, that's the way it was when she got it. She says I can throw the film out.

So, here I am. I've got half a roll of "mystery film" in this camera.

I think I'm going to shoot up the rest of the roll and develop the negatives. I won't make prints. I'll just scan them.

God knows what's on that film! What do you think I'll find?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-22-2010, 12:19 AM:
 
Go for it...you might find some intereting history that someone took on that roll ....

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-22-2010, 12:46 AM:
 
What was the ASA set to? if anything we would have a tiny clue as to what is loaded in the camera.

I'd be curious if it is negative film or reversal - (Kodachrome a bonus!)

If I were in your shoes and had absolutely no clue what was in it, I would just assume a film of 100 or 160asa and expose accordingly. Then rewind and pop the back open and see what was actually loaded and process accordingly. Be sure to keep us posted!
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-22-2010, 01:09 AM:
 
They have to be juicy photographs. No-one takes pictures of boring stuff like landscapes, weddings, holidays, family and kids anymore.

Maybe you have some Area 51 top Secret photos!....or how about NBC's documents on programming cock-ups....insider photos of Technicolor's 3D system.....snapshots of the latest chips from Intel.... or Tiger Wood's sex romps!!!

More than the mind is boggling here.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-22-2010, 07:28 AM:
 
The speed dial was set for 200 ASA.

I suppose it's negative film because I don't remember any transparency film that's 200 ASA. Kodachrome and Ektachrome both come in 32/64/100. Right? I don't know any black and white that's 200 ASA. It's likely color print film.

My bet is Kodak "Max-200" or Kodak "Gold-200."

Shot about a half dozen frames with it, last night, just around the house. Nothing special. Just wanted to see how the camera works. Seems to be in good condition!

I'll try to finish it up today and then I'll take it in to the photo store. I'll tell them to develop but not print.

I'll let you know what I find.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-22-2010, 07:43 AM:
 
Hopefully some awesome porn!!!! Not what you shot, the other stuff.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-22-2010, 08:54 AM:
 
I thought there might be some really gritty pics from a murder scene or something. But the camera is fairly clean. There are hardly any marks on the bottom plate except for a few light scratches around the tripod screw. There's almost no dirt around the dials and controls. There was some dust on the mirror inside but the camera came without the lens. (I used the lens off the camera I already own. Why bother buying a new one?)

Since the camera is so clean, I don't think it was used very much.

Personally, I wouldn't use 200 ASA film. I would use either 100 or 400. I'm going to guess by the condition, the fact that there is still film in the camera and by the 200 ASA film that whoever owned it before didn't know how to use it very well.

Consequently, my guess would be that there are random family photos on the film. If it was a birthday party or a vacation of some kind, the person would have had the film developed.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-22-2010, 09:58 AM:
 
You do realize that you are required to post the mystery pics in this thread, right?
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-22-2010, 11:41 AM:
 
I don't remember an ASA 32 for either Kodachrome or Ektachrome, but there was an ASA 25 for at least Kodachrome.

Seems like the only time I ever shot ASA 200 was if I had run out of film during a trip and just bought whatever I could get my hands on. Like Randy, for everyday stuff I used to shoot mostly ASA 100, 125 or 400 for prints, and ASA 64 for slides.

I'm trying to find someone to take all of my old film cameras, a couple of Canon 35mm bodies with several FD mount lenses, plus a Mamiya 645. Seems they're not even worth what it costs to ship them anywhere nowadays. So sad - in their day, even the non-pro stuff was rather finely crafted.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-22-2010, 12:18 PM:
 
Paul, you should keep at least one film camera.
I don't care how good the digital camera, you can't surpass film!

I finished up the roll in the camera. It is Kodacolor "Gold-200."
I'll take it to be processed on the way home from work.

If there's anything on the film, of course I'll post the shots.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-22-2010, 12:26 PM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

If there's anything on the film, of course I'll post the shots

---

Assuming your not in jail, perv.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-22-2010, 01:14 PM:
 
I'm guessing it'll be pictures of a minivan.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-22-2010, 01:15 PM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

If there's anything on the film, of course I'll post the shots.

---

Heh well the OCD part of my brain would be worried that there's something "unlawful" on that roll of film that could lead to trouble. Unlikely but hey you never know!
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-22-2010, 01:16 PM:
 
If they're juicy you should run the film back through to re-expose them and strategically place yourself in.

It's like the time I went camping and someone decided to take a picture of me standing by the bathroom for no reason but the camera jammed so when I developed the pictures that was superimposed with a shot I took of our campsite. It was the weirdest looking shot ever.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-22-2010, 04:41 PM:
 
I know it's too late now but, if you wanted to find out what type film was in the camera, make note of how many pictures had been taken. Then rewind the film, being careful to stop just as you feel the film come off the take-up. This will leave leader sticking out of the can, so you can rethread the camera. Attach the film to the take-up, close the camera, and with the lens cover on the lens (so you don't expose the film), "take" the same number of shots, plus two, that was on the film to begin with.

I have done this when I wanted to shoot two different types of film, with the same camera.
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-22-2010, 05:35 PM:
 
We shoud have a contest; see who guesses whats on the film, and the winner who's the closest gets a "Film-Tech" T-shirt or something.
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-22-2010, 05:41 PM:
 
Ancient Kodachrome had an ASA of 10. Conventional Kodachrome that we're all used to was available in 25, 40(t), 64 and 200
(T=tungsten)

Ektachrome came in lots of different speeds and color balance.
Panatomic-X was a black and white 32asa negative film.

I'm going to wager that it is a roll of Kodak royal gold 200 that has pictures taken of.........another camera!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-22-2010, 08:13 PM:
 
Yeah, the film was "Gold-200" 24 exp. but I got nearly 30 out of the roll.
I dropped it off at the photo store this afternoon. They say they'll be ready by 4:00 PM on Monday.

Chris, Once developed you can't re-expose the film. You would have to rewind the film and take a second set of images over top the first. I've done it before. You never know how the pictures will come out.

This is a double exposure I took many years ago:

 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-22-2010, 09:47 PM:
 
I like accidental double exposures. Here's what happens when you try Bruce's technique without counting the exposures properly when you reload the film:

(Kodachrome 200)
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-22-2010, 10:29 PM:
 
My double exposure was on purpose. It was an experiment.
I shot the whole roll of film normally then rewound the film just until the film movement indicator stopped flickering. Then I opened the camera, reattached the tail of the film to the takeup spool and reshot the whole roll again. If I remember correctly, I set the exposure bracketing dial to 1/2 on the second round of pictures.

It was a fun experiment but I only got one or two shots that were even usable out of that whole roll of film.
 

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 01-23-2010, 12:58 AM:
 
Better hope it isn't pictures of something that gets you arrested. One time my brother found a camera or roll of film (can't remember which) and went to pick it up after it was processed. He was met by several cops when he got there. Seems the previous owner was doing something he should not have been doing. Once they saw that it obviously wasn't my brother in the pics, they believed his story.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-23-2010, 05:46 AM:
 
Joshua, you were going to let your brother take the fall for you?
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-23-2010, 08:30 AM:
 
I have the electronic receipt from the purchase of the camera off eBay. I paid via PayPal. After that, I have two rounds of e-mail between me and the seller discussing the film that was left in the camera. There is a clear paper trail detailing the path that camera and film took between the seller and me. There is even a USPS tracking code on the box it was mailed in.

They don't make Kodacolor Gold film anymore. It was introduced in 1986 and went out of production in 2007. The images in the camera could have been taken 24 years ago. Of course, they could have been taken last week if somebody kept a roll of that film in their refrigerator for three years. I don't know too many people who would do that. If they were going to take pictures of kiddy porn they would have most likely done it with a digital camera in 2007. I'm going to estimate the images are five to ten years old, more or less because the film had taken a pretty good "set" as it was wound backward around the takeup spool. It was a bit difficult to rewind the film when I finished the roll.

The camera came from Colorado so I assume that's where the pictures originated. If there are any troublesome pictures on the film the cops would have to prove I was in Colorado at the time they were taken, with that camera in my possession.

When I took the film in for developing, I told them not to print the images. The guy asked me if I wanted them scanned to a Picture Disk and I just told him, "No." Thus, I reduce the chances that anybody will look at the images for any longer than necessary to ensure the film was developed properly. If the lab tech knows how to read negatives he might catch a glimpse of the images while he is working but the chances of him mentally parsing the images is reduced if he doesn't see enlarged positive images.

Yeah, I thought about the possibility of there being trouble before I even took the film to be developed.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 01-23-2010, 10:00 AM:
 
I bought a VGC Canon AE-1 camera at a thrift store a couple of years ago that came with a partial roll of film in it, too.

Finished the roll, and got it developed.

I now have 18 absolutely wonderful images of Big Cove in Cherokee NC in the fall. I blew 2 of them up to 8x10 size to frame. My meager pictures were not worth mentioning. I have absolutely no idea who took the pics. They had to be taken using a tripod. Absolutely sharp and well-framed.

Hope the pics you have are something good.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-23-2010, 10:25 AM:
 
They'll probably prove O.J.'s innocence and confirm it was Kato all along.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-23-2010, 11:04 AM:
 
I probably would have just developed the pictures myself. C-41 isn't that bad or expensive. Just need a changing bag and the tank/reels.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 01-23-2010, 11:21 AM:
 
If they're family photos I would try to get in touch with the original owner to find out if they would like the pics sent back to them (paying for postage of course).
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-23-2010, 12:20 PM:
 
When I went to the photo store I also bought a chemistry kit for T-Max. I plan to develop all my own film, eventually.

I have developed a lot of B/W film, T-Max, Tri-X, etc. I did a little bit of Ilford film, too. I have never developed color film at home. I have only done it by machine, like a Mini-Lab. You feed the film into one end and it comes out the other end all ready to print. I don't even remember the company that made it. I only used it once or twice. The class I was taking at Northeastern had the machine but I was not in the color film class. Only the B/W class. I sneaked a couple of rolls into the machine when there was a lull between classes.

Even though I have never done a lot of advanced work, I understand B/W developing pretty well. You put the film in the tank, pour in the chemicals and shake it up. (So to speak!

I can not imagine that developing C-41 color film is much more difficult than developing T-Max. I know there are more steps. There is the "Bleach/Fix" step. Right? I know you have to use a water bath to keep the tank and chemicals at the correct temperature throughout the developing steps. Right?

The guy at the photo store gave me this big spiel about C-41 being so hard to develop at home and that it's not worth my time to do it. He said I should just bring it in to be developed.

I don't know why the guy would give me a hard time about not spending $5.00 to get a roll of film developed when I just spent nearly $60.00 buying film and B/W chemistry. Shit! I'd spend that much again plus more to buy the C-41!

When I go back to pick up my film, if he gives me any more shit, I'm just going to start ordering my film supplies from B&H or KEH then only buy from him if I need it quick.

Anyhow, my plan is to develop a few rolls of T-Max just to get my chops back then I'll decide if I want to do C-41.

What do you think about doing E-6 at home?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-23-2010, 03:18 PM:
 
I started off backwards in my darkroom...partly because I didn't have a darkroom!

My first step into developing was E-6. I was really shooting slides a lot in the '70s. They had a lot of advantages...small storage, no separate negatives, via a slide projector, easier to show to a group than prints, prints can be made from them...etc.

Another thing I liked about slides is the availability of Tungsten film too. When I went to Europe in the '70s (dad had clients in Germany), I would load up on Tungsten film and all of my lenses had "85" filters. The advantage here is that you didn't need a flash for indoors and the color was right for museums (not many fluorescencents). When I was outdoors, with tons of light, screw on the 85B filters and, tada, again no problem with color...plus it would knock some of the excess light down. As I recall, I pushed the film a stop or two to aid in indoor shots anyway.

The downside to E-6 is that it is Icktachrome and the stability is wanting. Also, back then, E-6 was probably harder than it is now. You did have to carefully control your chemistry temps...particularly the developer (I recall it being something like 100-101F. I had a "color thermometer" from Kodak that was in the bath with the chemistry. I remember using "Skippy" peanut butter glass jars for everything...later in life they would be brown plastic "crush" jugs. There were 7 or so steps to E-6 then. I have no idea what it is now.

C-41 got down to three steps. I think Bessler marketed a set of chemistry called the "3-step". It amounted to "Developer", "Bleach," and "Fixer." Pretty much the same number of steps in B&W (Developer, Stop, Fix).

In Jr.High, I was quite involved on the school paper and the yearbook. That is when I really got into B&W. I bought Ilford HP5 and FP4 by the 100-foot rolls and loaded my own...particularly when the school was paying for film/paper/chemistry! I would shoot a sporting event in the afternoon and have pictures ready for the next day...often before the "reporter" had their story ready. And since I was doing the slide thing on color...I also enlarged them using the Cibachrome process...very good indeed.

The last thing I did was C-41 and color prints from negatives. But when I did get into it...I was making chemistry by the gallon (again with my "crush" jugs to keep the air out. I was doing pictures from 16x20 and smaller, color or B&W.

For doing 1-roll...it will be cheaper to let the lab do it...if you are hitting 5 rolls or more, as I recall...it is cheaper for you to do it...and nowadays, probably even more so as you don't often have to print any more...just scan. With computers, many of the advantages of slides are now had by negatives since they can be scanned though I've never seen ANYTHING top Kodachrome (And I never, of course, processed that). It remains my favorite.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-23-2010, 04:18 PM:
 
You did Kodachrome by hand? Cripes! The guy at the camera store (the only one left in town) talks of Kodachrome as if it was black magic!

I would probably buy film by the roll and have them develop it if not for the attitude I got. I think I'm going to get a bulk loader and buy film by the 100 ft. roll.

When I was developing film in college I did a bunch of it at home in the bathroom. If you weren't actually taking a class you weren't supposed to use the darkroom but if the lab techs (usually grad students) got to know who you were from previous classes you could sneak in on occasion and run off a couple-three prints before anybody figured it out.

At that time I didn't use crush jugs. I was just using empty (well washed) milk jugs and filling them up with glass marbles to take up air space. Everything was always kept in a closed cupboard under the sink so I didn't worry about light spoiling things.

I still have a lot of my old stuff. I've got my tank reels and thermometer plus a few doodads like funnels and measures. All I really need is the chemicals. I can make working batches out of the concentrate solutions instead of making stock solutions.

I'll do T-Max for a while just to get the hang of it again. Then, if I feel up to it, I'll do some C-41. If this really takes off I'll do some E-6.

I'll work up to it a little at a time.

Oh! And yes, I plan to scan everything. If I need anything printed on paper I'll do it with my inkjet or send it to a lab.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-23-2010, 06:06 PM:
 
Nobody did Kodachrome (re-read my post). It is black-magic...well it is dye-transfer...it is truly amazing stuff and it is criminal that Kodak won't do at least 1 run a year for whom ever wants it. It just hasn't and won't be topped.

I too still have all of my stuff though I haven't set it up in probably 20-years...early '90s for sure.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-23-2010, 06:15 PM:
 
I still have my last six rolls of Kodachrome here (not for sale!). Dwayne's Photo claims that they will continue to process it through the end of this year "or while supplies last."

After that, the best that one will be able to do would be to process it as B&W at Rocky Mountain Film.

I'm mostly a B&W guy, but I do like Kodachrome. I use C-41 color negative for "snapshots," but not for anything serious. I've never developed color film; I have mostly been scared away from that based on horror stories of what happens when the temperature of the chemistry isn't dead-on perfect.

Right now, I'm rather obsessed with the 4x5 Speed Graphic and flashbulbs. It's fun to re-invent 1940.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-23-2010, 07:10 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Nobody did Kodachrome

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

It is black-magic...well it is dye-transfer

---

Kodachrome has no connection with dye-transfer; it's an integral tripack colour film, but without the couplers incorporated in it as with just about every other colour film.

Dye transfer printing isn't dead, even though Kodak stopped making the materials years ago. Some people stockpiled materials, others formulated their own dyes, and somebody even built a coating machine, and made his own matrix film. There's actually a dye transfer group on Yahoo.

Man of the so-called alternative processes are having a revival, there are more people making wet plate photographs today than at any time in the last 110 tears or so, and it's not difficult to find wet plate courses; quite a few people run them. Take a look at the work of this Gentleman for example:

web page

Many people are trying the simpler processes, salt prints and cyanotypes for example, and there's a good book 'Spirits of Salts' about them; I think it's still in print.

Even the more exotic, difficult, and sometimes downright dangerous, processes have a few practitioners; people are making daguerreotypes again, and incredibly even Lippmann photographs.

I haven't done any photography for several years, but I do want to start again. I'm hoping to retire in four years, so I may get time then.

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Right now, I'm rather obsessed with the 4x5 Speed Graphic and flashbulbs. It's fun to re-invent 1940.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Nobody did Kodachrome (re-read my post).

---

You're right. It's that alphabet soup thing... K-14, E-6, C-41, D-76, T-Max, Tri-X, Plus-X... they all start to run together in my head.

Dammitt!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-23-2010, 11:13 PM:
 
Scott...don't be scared about processing C-41. The last time I did it (about 20-years ago)...it got to be real stable...I don't recall having to really worry about the temp...I seem to recall that there was a processing time versus temp and that was about it. I don't think I ever had a C-41 not turn out. E-6 processing in the '70s was more tricky, for sure...definitely only something like a 2-degree window and I recall missing on one roll (or two as I often process two at a time).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-24-2010, 04:13 PM:
 
Some years ago, I took a dark room class, and if I remember the number correctly, we did E-4 (this was before E-6 came out). It took an hour, and there were 13 steps. It was a pain. My film turned out great, and I still have it, although, I have never cut and mounted the slides.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2010, 08:57 PM:
 
I was going thru the closet in my office last night and ran across my old 35mm camera, a Yashica FR-1. It still had a 36-roll of film in it (Kodak 200, I think) that had about 12 exposures on it. I'm sure they'll be lame attempts at pics around the theatre here, but it'll be fun to see anyway.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-26-2010, 04:39 PM:
 
Well I got the film back. Results were disappointing. The entire roll came out black.

Looks like the film was exposed to room light or else it was so old it just went bad:


Even the few shots I took at the end of the roll were fogged/exposed:


I did not open the camera at any time before finishing and rewinding the roll. I took the rewound cartridge out of the camera, put it into my pocket and went directly to the store to get it developed.

If the camera wasn't working properly I wouldn't expect to see the film black all the way to the edges. And, if somebody accidentally opened the camera with film inside without rewinding, I wouldn't expect the film that was still inside the cartridge to be black all the way to the edges, either.

Shit... Disappointing...

 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-26-2010, 05:46 PM:
 
Bummer. But at least now you have a few feet of black slug to put to some use?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-26-2010, 06:06 PM:
 
Paul, you ASS! I was going to say that! You stoled MY thunder!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2010, 06:19 PM:
 
Well...I sent my "mystery roll" in to get developed yesterday, so maybe I can salvage this thread with some interesting shots. (Probably just boring around-the-theatre pics though.)
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2010, 06:45 PM:
 
Randy, that'd make an awesome mask for some kind of design.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-26-2010, 07:01 PM:
 
Well, I'm always bitching at the kids doing the advertising and marketing projects because they make strips of film with the wrong sprocket holes.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2010, 08:50 PM:
 
Oops I said "mask" when I meant matte. But you knew that.

What really chaps my ass is when advertising or other graphics show "movie film" and the frame lines are waaaay off. Do some research, graphic artists!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2010, 08:53 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

maybe I can salvage this thread with some interesting shots

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I'm sure Joe can whip us up something.

---