Kodak "The Handle"
I don't really consider Kodak's "The Handle" a toy camera, but a cursory glance did not reveal a forum for instant cameras.
With a mother and aunt who tend to hoard, I have to give specific instructions to NOT acquire any camera equipment on my behalf. For example, my mom gave me an Advanix cassette binder from Goodwill. No one in our extended family knew what Advantix/APS was, let alone had one. It was film-related and cheap (25-cents), so she bought it. I had her re-donate it.
That said, there are exceptions to my "rule." One is I will accept anything that belonged to family; to me it is a sort of connection to the past and to family. Of course, I have to use each of these camera's at least once
I've a distant cousin who entered a nursing home, and as my aunt has been cleaning out her house, I have been given several camera's this cousin's husband owned (he died a couple decades ago). While I remember him, I do not remember him using any of these cameras.
One is The Handle, which I've now had about 2 years. I bought a new battery, and found some expired film on ebay. It is no surprize the film is dead; the best I got from the film was nothing. The worst I got was a mess, with the chemicals squeezing free of the film (though I've had luck with Polaroid 40-series film from the 60s in my Great Grandmother's "The 800"). I had also purchased four packs of expired Fuji FI-800GT, and have finally had the chance to play a bit.
This page about using the Fuji film in Kodak instant cameras suggests an ND2 filter would be needed, but I decided to try the film straight, as it's age may compensate a bit. It was partly sunny, and I took a picture at the brightest and darkest camera settings; the pictures are over- and under- exposed respectively. It seems I'll not need a filter, though have a scrap of ND2 gel just in case. The photos are a bit soft and colors a bit muted, but I don't see any fog (though the backyard has a lot of trees and dead leaves - I need a nice flat background to tell for sure. The trees don't have new leaves yet, so no canopy affected the exposure). I'd post the photos, but don't have a scanner setup.
It appears I can peel the photo off the rest of the film, as the seam near the pod looks like it can separate and lift - am I mistaken?
I'm just sharing my experience, but feel free to give any input or opinions This camera will be fun to play with. I'm wondering if I should find more film, or go ahead with my idea to modify this thing to take Instax wide.
You should pm Prof Pixel here on APUG. IIRC, he worked on the Kodak instant film project.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
The Handle (EK2) was the bottom of the line of introductory Kodak Instant cameras and designed for PR-10 film (ASA 160). The last cameras were designed for HS-144 film which was a stop faster. Towards the end, HS-144 came in a Trimprint version that let you peel off the print from the picture unit making for a thinner print and improving image stability. I've got lots of different Kodak Instant Cameras in my possession, but never had a chance to try any of the Fuji film in them because the the Fuji film wasn't available in the US until Polaroid went 'belly up'.
This is a good reference page: http://www.apcsociety.com.au/images/KodakInstant.pdf
Kodak traded off the Instant Film technology to Fuji for rights to some of Fuji's reversal film dye couplers.
Fuji went on to use the technology in their Pictrography printers and of course, Instax film.
I'll be interested in finding out if you can modify your camera to use Instax wide film.
Did I see the correct figure?--Kodak ordered to pay Polaroid 925 MILLION? Isn't that exorbitant? What company now or in 1976 was even worth half that? That's purt near a billion dollars. I hardly doubt Polaroid suffered a loss of sales to Kodak anywhere near that. The judge in the case is probably dead by now, but somebody ought to dig him up and shoot him.
Originally Posted by Tom1956
The case was heard in a Cambridge court house by a judge with no understanding of the technologies involved and who decided the issue based on the idea of a concept patent - instant photography. (Notice I didn't mention the gender of the judge.)
Kodak and Polaroid leaders had earlier worked out a settlement that would have kept Kodak in the instant marketplace, but Eddie Land shot it down because he felt Kodak insulted him by offering products in his marketplace. Getting all that money was probably the worst thing that could have happened to Polaroid. The instant market was slowing down , but rather than using the money to invest in other possible options for the company, most went back to the stockholders.
Polaroid is gone, but Kodak Instant Film lives on as Fuji's Instax film.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I sure can tell it's the bottom of the line, lol. Oddly, I have a Zeiss Contessa 35mm folder that was owned by the same cousin. Maybe he bought the Handle on a whim.
Thanx for the PDF link. I had found some information online (and on APUG), but hadn't seen that before. Great background.
"Deconstructing" things is easy for me. Creating and modifying is another story, but I will try on this camera. It seems I will have to widen the film chamber and put a spacer near the top (probably made from an old PR-10 cartridge).
I've a cartridge of Instax Wide to sacrifice for this experiment, but haven't unwrapped it yet. I can't find web images of what I need, so will just have to sit down some day and work on the cartridge - I imagine I need to make a slot for the finger to start the film ejection, and figure out how to not damage the film in the process. The film may just fit the width of the rollers and slot at the top. If so, there will be the issue of ensuring it gets between the rollers, and possibly an issue with the gap between the rollers.
It's theoretically possible. If possible in practice, it still may be beyond my skill-set.
Just took a picture indoors with an Acme-Lite 138 (can be used in place of magic cubes and flip-flashes). I did manage a bit of an over-exposure. Dialing in exposure with filters will be too variable for expired instant film.
Instead, I'm just going to have fun with it; it's good enough for that. I'll worry about exposure if I can modify it to Instax.
Kodak compromised a number of Polariod patents willfulley... there only option was to buy Polariod out before it went to court.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
They should have bought Polariod that would have been cheap.
They had earlier made lots of the Polariod film.
The judge reduced Polariods damage claim by a large factor cause the instant market had been damaged by c41 mini lab turnaround and Polariod claimed potential sales had been damaged by that more than by Kodaks competition.
So Kodak had damaged themselves twice
by compromising patents and
by competing in a diminishing market they had diminished themselves...
They spent a fortune developing their instant process as well. And had to buy back all their instant cameras at retail.'
It was a mega goof and Kodak got of light... except
In the mean time their real enemy was developing E6 and C41 film technology and has made a better change into digital cameras.
Originally Posted by Xmas
What Kodak did manufacture for some time was the light sensitive part, the halide film, whereas Polaroid first only made the receptive part.
Nope. Sorry, but that's NOT true. Kodak very carefully investigated possible patent issues before starting the project. The Kodak technology is completely different from the Polaroid technology. All the two have in common is 'instant photography'.
Originally Posted by Xmas
Kodak Instant Film used a direct reversal emulsion called 'Reversal F'. The story goes that it was developed a spy film by the Harrow Labs in England. It used a 'core-shell' grain structure (think onion). When exposed, the latent image goes internal to the core. Developers at that time (WW II) were surface developers and since there was no surface latent image on the silver grains, nothing was developed. When used with a grain-cracking developer, the internal latent image was developed.
To make a direct reversal product, a nucleating agent is included in the developer. Where there is an internal latent image (exposed area) the electrons generated by the nucleating agent also go internal. Where there is no internal latent image (unexposed area) the electrons from the nucleating agent stay on the surface, making the grain developable.
Kodak DID make the color negative material used in the old Polaroid peel-apart color print film for many years. Kodak DID investigate making such peel-apart film because the Polaroid patents had expired, but for various reasons decided not to.
Kodak was never involved in making any parts of the SX-70 film.
suggest you need to read the litigation... yes Kodaks chemistry was different but not sufficiently innovative.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
Patents are written generically... to stop competition.
The litigation involved bits of seven patents by '86 five were still valid in time and Kodak had to stop manufacture.
Yes one patent involved physical handling of a print but Kodak managed to transgress others wilfully...
If you ask I'll find the patent numbers.