Shooting the Balda Baldixette

 I've mentioned this lovely camera a few times on this blog but haven't yet shared
any photos taken with it, so today's the day to share some of its snapshots. 

A little background about the camera. Well, it has a fancy (for a box camera) 72mm 2-element lens and a choice of two apertures, f/9 and f.16. It shoots at 1/60, focuses down to 5 feet, and dates from around 1956. It shoots 6x6 squares and has the most laughable, impractically small viewfinder. To make composition easier I bought an accessory viewfinder that slips into the accessory shoe on top.

 These were all taken on Lomography 400 film. 

Well, I think it's safe to say these are some of the nicest and sharpest colour shots I've taken on a box camera. The Baldixette is certainly worth the few quid they go for on eBay if you are looking for an eye-level box camera. That said, the tiny viewfinder can be challenging, so it may be worth investing in an accessory viewfinder like I did.

Another Eye-Level Box Camera: Kodak Brownie Cresta III

 I had a recent trip to Inverness and took with me another box camera, just in case there was anything nice to shoot while I was there.

After my failure with the Agfa Clack I decided to give another camera a go that is also shot at eye-level, a Kodak Brownie Cresta III. This plastic wonder may not look like much but it has one of the most reliable shutter mechanisms in my whole collection and its plastic Dakon lens gives lovely results. 

It dates from the first half of the 1960s and has a choice of two apertures, f/11 and f/16 (though these are labelled EV12 and EV13). It also has a close up lens that pulls into place with the lever on the side which allows you to focus as close as 4 feet. Its single shutter speed of 1/40 puts it on a par with the plastic Ensign Fulvueflex, another camera that many might dismiss as a toy but actually gives rather nice results.

As it happens, the weather was rather nice in Inverness and my husband and I had a hour before we had to move on, so we decided to take a walk along the Caledonian Canal. I am very happy to say that my pictures came out a lot sharper on the Brownie than they did on the Agfa, and most of the roll had some nice pictures on it.

One interesting thing did crop up, though. Apparently, at some point during lockdown, I loaded this camera in the vague hope of getting some nice shots near my home. I guess the conditions weren't great and I only managed to get 4 shots, after which I shelved the camera and awaited better conditions. I guess they were a long time coming because I couldn't remember for the life of me when I loaded the camera, or what film it was loaded with when it came to our Inverness outing. Peering through the film window revealed rounded numbers, which were a tell tale sign of Catlabs X Fiilm 80, a film I am very fond of. Now, either because the camera had been shelved for so long or because the film unravelled a little on loading, the first couple of shots had light leak. It probably happened during loading as I took the same shot of a sand castle three times, so I must have suspected the first frames wouldn't come out. The third shot was mostly unscathed and is pictured here:

Sand Castle

That's a surprising amount of detail in the sand from a plastic lens. 

Anyway, as I couldn't remember what the first 3 frames were, or the conditions in which they were taken, we decided to semi-stand develop the film, a process I will explain in more detail in the next post. For now, it will do to say that the film responded very well to this approach and we got some nice snaps.

Old Tractor Factory

Boats on the Caledonian Canal

More Boats on the Caledonian Canal

Swans

Bell Tower

Caledonian Canal

Wait For Me, Dad

Clachnaharry Railway

Railway Cottages

So we've ended up with some pretty vintage looking shots. I think C. T. Goode would have been very proud of my Clachnaharry Railway shot!

 I don't know how long the film sat in the camera but the sky shows some imprinting of the film backing paper on the image in many of the shots. I've had this happen before when a camera has sat loaded but unused for some time, so it's best to avoid that if possible. It hasn't ruined the shots though. Shall we just claim it adds character?

The Cresta III is a lovely camera. Highly recommended. A great box camera for beginners that's easy to use and doesn't involve any tricky waist level composing. British made Brownies are also good choices as they tend to take 120 film. Lots of other Brownie models take 127 film which is harder to come by and expensive.

Eye Level Box Camera: The Agfa Clack

Not all box cameras are shot at waist level. Some nice models are shot at eye level.
I have a couple in my collection and on the arrival of the recent lambing snows in my part of the world I thought it'd be nice to go out, play in the snow a bit and take some snaps with one of these machines. 

I'm pretty comfortable shooting at waist level now. I can usually do it without camera shake. Depending on the model of camera, and the size of its viewfinders I can more or less get a straight horizon too, though this is challenging on some, cough cough Junior Box Ensign. 

The eye level shooter I chose today was an Agfa Clack,which is a really lovely model with bells and whistles such as a swing in place close up lens with built in yellow filter, and two apertures, f/11 and f/12.5! It shoots eight 6x9 frames and has a 95mm meniscus lens. It's solidly made and feels nice to handle. In the right pair of hands it takes great shots.

Mine were not the right pair of hands today. I thought I was managing to keep the camera steady but the image blur shows I failed. The only image that was crisp, the last one, was also the only image I took in portrait instead of landscape. This suggests to me that my method of holding the camera up and pressing the shutter release with my right thumb was the problem, as when I held the camera differently for that one shot it remained steady. 

I can hardly review the camera with these shots. It would be grossly unfair. As the final, sharp shot demonstrates, the lens has some decent resolving power so I will have to learn from my mistakes and take this camera out again. It was still fun being out and about with a box camera, and I hope with time I'll get the hang of this one. 

I was shooting Catlabs X Film 80, pulled a stop to ISO 40 as the snowy conditions were so bright. The pictures are ordered from worst to best.

1) House and Boat

 

2) Fence Posts

 

3) Drunk Gate

4) Impressionist Power Poles

 

5) School Football Pitch

 

6) Road

7) House Under Clouds

8) Stream

 

So some of those pictures will probably give you a headache if you stare at them too long. Others are blurry though I don't mind the results. I actually quite like the slightly impressionist vibes I get from the shot of the power poles, and I find the mild soft focus of the road shot quite pleasing. The image has a nice mood. I was very happy with the stream shot though. I think it gives a tantalising taste of what this camera can do. Let's hope I do better next time.

Box or Folder? Which is Better for Beginners?

As my vintage camera collection grows, this is a question that keeps cropping up in my mind. For the most part, folding cameras were more advanced models than box cameras, with better lenses, more shutter speeds, and typically a higher price. However, that is not always the case. Some folders offer little more by way of functionality than the box cameras, which makes me wonder what the thought process was when choosing one or the other back in the 1950s or earlier. 

Here is a good example:

As we can see from this advert for the All Distance Ensign and the Pocket Model No. 1, there really isn't much to distinguish these cameras. Both offer a single, instantaneous shutter speed, both allow time exposures, both have direct vision and reflex view finders, and both cameras come in red, blue, or brown. The only real difference is the price (25/- versus 37/6). Now the folding camera is obviously the more compact. The clue is in the name "folding" camera. In fact this model it is marketed as a camera for your pocket. One might suspect it has a better lens, but this is just another single element "all-distance" lens, with preset "portrait" or "view" mount positions.

So, is it a case of convenience only? Is it worth the extra cash just to have a camera that will fit in your pocket? Or is it a status thing? Do you buy the folder just because it looks like a more expensive camera?

There may be something in that theory. An early Ensign camera catalogue includes a review of the Ful-Vue (early model), which states:

Finally, it has the appearance of a very expensive camera, although one can buy it for a modest 25/-.

Nevertheless, in the same catalogue, a description of the Ensign Pocket E-20 Camera states:

Many beginners escape the box camera stage entirely and commence with a folding model.  The convenience with which  this type of camera can be carried compared with the 'box' needs no emphasis.

No better folding camera for a beginner is to be found in any maker's catalogue than the Ensign Pocket E-20....its graceful tapering ends and slim body enable it to be easily carried in almost any normal pocket.

A particular feature... is the hinged back, a feature until recently only found on the more expensive types of camera. 

In terms of functionality and creative scope the Pocket E-20 cannot outdo the cheaper box cameras, so it isn't much of a progression for beginners to exchange their boxes for this. The description does indeed seem to claim that the convenient size and the appearance of a more expensive camera are the main selling points of this camera.

Were the beginners to fork out for Pocket E-20 Model 2, on the other hand, that would be quite the upgrade. They would get an Ensar f/7.7 anastigmat lens with front cell focusing  and two instantaneous shutter speeds of 1/25 and 1/75. The model 1 cost 27/6. This upgraded model 2 cost £2-5-0.

What about other models, such as the Selfix Snapper? The entry camera into the impressive Selfix folding range.

Advert in PhotoGuide Magazine, Vol. 5, No.6 (1954)

Well, if you read the advert you'll see this camera is barely more capable than the Ful-Vue Super, released the same year. Both had a three point focusing lens that would focus from 2 yards to infinity. They have a single instantaneous shutter speed, are both synchronised for flash, and both take 620 film. The only way that the Snapper is an upgrade on the Super is because it offers 2 apertures instead of just one. However, given that in 1955, The Chemist and Druggist magazine listed the Super's retail price as 59/8, you'd have to really want that extra aperture to pay £5.10.8 for the Snapper instead.

All I will say is the Snapper was a fine looking camera, and maybe that was part of what you were paying for.

So, for absolute beginners it seems to come down to aesthetics (my camera looks pretty), bragging rights (my camera looks expensive), and ease of carrying (my camera fits in my plus fours). If you had a little more cash at your disposal, the folders could offer nicer lenses and a few more apertures and shutter speeds. That said, not all box cameras were created equal. Some, such as the Balda Baldixette c.1956 had 2-element lenses and 2 apertures. The Halina 6-4, c.1961, had a 2-element lens, shot dual format, and had 3 apertures. So at the beginner level it  really is swings and roundabouts. The folders don't outclass the boxes until we get to the improver models such as the Ensign Pocket E-20 Model 2, the Ensign Ranger II, or the Franka Bonafix. 

Ultimately, what it really comes down to is the final print. The better the resolving power of the lens, the larger you can enlarge your prints. For those folders and box cameras that are roughly equivalent, with 'all distance' lenses, you probably wouldn't expect anything more than contact prints. If you could afford a Kodak Sterling II with its 4-element Tessar-type lens then you will be able to blow up the prints a good deal. If you're just starting out the cheaper boxes will do nicely.

A child with a folding camera, pictured in The Home Photographer and Snapshots Magazine, October 1933.

Testing a Junior Box Ensign

While I've been experimenting with Catlabs film, I have added a new box camera
to the collection. This is the Junior Box Ensign, which predates the first Ful-Vue by about a decade. They were made between 1929 and 1933 and there are two striking differences from the Ful-Vue range. First, the camera is much bigger, particularly taller. This is because there is no inner cone for film loading. Instead, the take-up and loading spools sit above and beneath the film plane respectively.

The other obvious difference is the viewfinder. The Ful-Vue finder is huge. The Junior Box has two finders and each is miniscule. The one on top is for vertical shots and the one on the side is for horizontal shots, just like the Ferrania Zeta Duplex I tested not long ago. I thought composing on the Ferrania was hard. This was harder. No wonder the Ful-Vues were so popular.

There were no details in the camera's literature regarding its aperture or shutter speed. In the end my husband and I made an educated guess at f/12.5 and 1/40. Judging from the results we were about right. The lens does not focus closer than 10 feet.

I ran a roll of Catlabs X Film 80 through the camera. I had a wonky horizon on nearly every shot. Interestingly I also ended up with a lot more sky than I intended with some of them. The subjects were so tiny it was hard to know at times if I was even pointing at the right thing.

Another quirk of this camera is that the shutter fires when you push the lever in either direction, which took some getting used to. 

Anyway, I ended up with eight 6x9 exposures and although the compositions of some are questionable due to photographer error, the lens performed well, producing a minimal vignette. The images aren't tack sharp of course, but the vintage character of the lens is nice.

Here are some of the results:

A nice rural scene

More sky than I wanted, but still a nice capture. The horizon was straightened a little afterwards.

My favourite shot, though still not straight.

It nicely captured this moody scene.

A ridiculous amount of sky. I must have tilted the camera a fraction before shooting.

So, more practice required with the Junior Box Ensign. A nice camera though. Because it is so big it's easy to steady so there is less chance of camera shake. I was a bit worried the shutter lever might get nudged in my bag as I was walking, but there were no accidental exposures.

During production this camera was a budget model available for 8s 6d. It was also available through premium schemes in return for tokens, and would arrive with a roll of film. I think I'd have been delighted with it, once I got the hang of those tiny viewfinders of course.