Fantastic plastic: Moments from a Kodak Brownie 127

Cycling in England

Ashmore Park, England, 1964

I carried my Kodak Brownie 127 camera for nearly 20 years. The little Bakelite box camera sold for under £2 (less than $5 at the time) in the late ‘50s. It used 127 roll film — a medium format stock, between 35mm and the larger 120 professional film. A simple winder moved film from one spool to another. A red, circular window in the back of the camera enabled viewing of frame numbers. Each roll of 127 film accommodated eight 4X6.5 cm images.

The camera boasted a ‘Dakon’ 65mm plastic lens, resulting in a soft-focus look, particularly in the corners of the image. Nevertheless, the large negative recorded a lot of detail and, in good light, produced some good images. Other than a shutter release, there were no controls. The simple leaf shutter opened for 1/50th of a second. The lens had a fixed aperture of f/14.

In the spring of 1965, as my family prepared to emigrate to Canada, I began to document the surroundings I knew I’d soon be leaving behind: my bicycle, my extended family, nearby fields where I practiced cross-country running and cyclocross, and the housing estates I toured with my cousin on his somewhat oversized Fiorelli. A roll of negatives from a few months on includes an aerial snapshot of the Rocky Mountains — where I’d live and climb just a few years later — made on July 14, 1965, from the window of a DC-8 airliner as my family and I emigrated to a new home in British Columbia.

In the ‘70s I used it to document life in the Kootenays’ Purcell Mountains, mailing film to a lab in Vancouver for development and printing. Unfortunately, much of that was colour, with less exposure latitude and inferior archival qualities compared to black-and-white film. Nevertheless, as described below, the meeting of these old analog images with modern digital hardware and software produces some interesting results.

In the early ‘90s, I took some of the old black-and-white negs from the Brownie, loaded them into a glass carrier, and made silver-gelatin prints with my Besseler enlarger and Rodenstock lens.  More recently, I’ve scanned them with an Epson Perfection V750 Pro flatbed scanner (as seen in the appended gallery). In digitally preparing/restoring these photographs I have resisted the urge toward “perfection,” preferring to leave some artifacts, while fixing obvious flaws. I’d be misleading the reader, however, if I did not admit to some judicious use of Photoshop and Nik software to render the photographs as I visualized them, using original prints as a guide, if not a blueprint. Hell, modern snap shooters reach for retro filters to achieve looks like this!

Sadly, my old plastic buddy disappeared into the Purcells during my last sojourn. It would have had pride of place on my vintage camera shelf. Still, I have the memories.

 

11 comments
Add a comment...

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

  • Paul Dixon - Saw your comment about Instamatic.  My camera from about ’68 to ’72 was an Instamatic. I beat the daylights out of that camera while hiking and camping around Vancouver and Whistler, yet it kept out pumping out the photos.  The only “issue” was after I took a face-first slide on a glacier up by Garibaldi Lake, sliding about 200 yards with the camera underneath my body.  It was packed full of snow and the rest of the shots on that roll were somewhat “misty”, but once it dried out it was fine.  For some reason lost in the mists of time I shot slide film, mostly Kodachrome and they have held up very nicely over time.September 25, 2017 – 2:14 pmReplyCancel

    • Raymond Parker - Great story! Yes, as I mentioned below, that was the only camera carried on a 3-month trip through the north, in 1976. I think I have one surviving set of negs from that camera. I should try scanning them.
      Yup. Kodachromes, being a silver process at the core, hold up very well.September 25, 2017 – 4:04 pmReplyCancel

  • Paul Dixon - My father had the Brownie. Christmas of ’62 if I remember correctly.  I’ve been scanning the old family photos with the Epson V850. The gel prints are far beyond my capability – I can only imagine the fun you’re having with that. Agree with your comment on “perfection”. In older photos, especially of our own lives, the little “thngs” are more reflective of what it was like. Years ago a friend of mine would make reference to “choclate boxes”, by which he meant the old-time photos of cute little girls that adorned candy boxes. Too pretty – too perfect, not a refelction of the real world. It’s those little things that make the photo/picture real.September 25, 2017 – 2:08 pmReplyCancel

    • Raymond Parker - Agreed, Paul, but I have gone to great lengths with some of the Eighties Vancouver material ― not to alter any object in the image, but in terms of restoration where time or poor development has marred the beauty of the negative.
      Ultimately, the beauty of an image does not reside in perfection, but I believe a good grounding in craft is essential.
      Though I was once a good silver printer, I’m happy now to work in a “darkroom” that is neither dark nor smelly. I’m finding that the prints I can produce via digital means (on my Epson 4900) are actually superior in such things as tonal range than their silver gelatin counterparts.September 25, 2017 – 4:19 pmReplyCancel

      • Paul Dixon - Agree with your comments in terms of altering versus restoring. I’d love to have the printer, but it’s a matter of space and lack of work area. My little fantasy would have me making my own paper and then printing.  My father was in the printing business from soup to nuts, so there’s so much that comes back to me (from things he said years ago) when I start sifting through papers. He took me through the plant more than 50 years ago to show me a job underway and I’ve got a couple of the prints off that job stashed away around here somewhere.  Still something about the smell of the ink and paper. I did some darkroom classes in the ’80s, but never got into it seriously.September 25, 2017 – 8:17 pmReplyCancel

        • Raymond Parker - The functions of Photoshop are beguiling, but I mostly resist the temptation to improve documentary views beyond, say, the removal of a distracting peripheral element. Some purists  reject even minor retouching. My defence would be that such actions are nothing new ― Ansel Adams and Sebastio Salgado (or their assistants) applied spotting to prints.
          I still have an array of SpotTone inks that, even now, I occasionally apply to minor blemishes on digital prints (good that I retain in my dotage skill with a #00 brush 🙂 ) but happy to have the PS equivalent and associated Wacom tablet pressure-sensitive “brush” to achieve better, seamless results, before printing. Better than spotting negs or scraping away emulsion on finished prints.
          Anyway, as noted, these old negs have received a minimum of such restoration, which perhaps says less about my “archival” storage methods over the years than pure luck in their survival.September 25, 2017 – 8:47 pmReplyCancel

  • Kathy Brown - you have been a photo documentarian for a long time! Cool pictures…November 20, 2014 – 3:28 pmReplyCancel

    • Raymond Parker - Getting up there. I forget which photographer made the statement ― perhaps David Bailey ― that any photograph over 30 years-old can’t be all bad, but I’m counting on it. 🙂November 20, 2014 – 6:12 pmReplyCancel

      • Kathy Brown - Thirty years ago I would have been using an Kodak Instamatic 110 – November 20, 2014 – 9:17 pmReplyCancel

        • Raymond Parker - That was the only camera carried on a 3-month odyssey to the northern Yukon, in 1976. Unfortunately, most of those negs are gone.

          110 was an unfortunate foray into miniaturization, IMO, though I understand it’s making a comeback amongst “Lomography” enthusiasts. The reason the Brownie could make quite nice images, even with a plastic lens, is due to the film size: 127, which is basically medium-format. 110 is very hard to enlarge successfully above “drug store” print size.November 20, 2014 – 9:55 pmReplyCancel

          • Kathy Brown - Interesting! I’ll have to look up Lomography – thanks Raymond!November 20, 2014 – 10:51 pm

Subscribe to my YouTube Channel

Contact

Raymond Parker Photo
6395 Riverstone Dr.
Sooke, BC,
Canada V9Z 1N4

PH: (250) 896-7623

Send Email

Privacy Policy

Newsletter