~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Another factor that needs to be considered as well is that what constitutes a standard for exposure for "snapshot" cameras now may very well be significantly different than the standard when the OP's camera was current.
I have a few negatives from around that period, and they look today to be both over-exposed and over-developed. I believe that manufacturer's recommendations then were oriented toward drug store processing and avoiding under-exposure, at all costs.
So I would be careful about using those recommendations without backing it up with testing.
Like Vericolour, which went from ASA 125 to ASA 160, and was still called Vericolour.
Although that may have been when it went from Vericolour I to Vericolour II (or was it II to III?).[/QUOTE]
Matt, I think it was II to III they made that change. I remember ordering some II and they sent III. I was nervous since I hadn't tested the new film and had to shoot a wedding the next day. I think I shot it at 100 ASA just to make sure I had something. I couldn't tell a difference except the colors had to be reprogrammed into the printers and analyzers. They were a little off from the II film. I'm not really sure it wasn't just a base change in the new version. My memory is a little foggy since it has been a long time ago.
So do I as well as some from the teens and 1920's and I would agree that they certainly look over-developed. Actually, they look almost exactly like my own hand-made film when it is over-developed which is one reason I believe the technology (or lack thereof) behind them is basically the same. The film I make now and especially the negatives I have from the 20's look very, very similar in most respects and that's where this whole question really started.Quote:
I have a few negatives from around that period, and they look today to be both over-exposed and over-developed.
Also, FWIW, there is an unopened box of 120 Super-XX of 1948 vintage listed on eBay right now. The seller has good,clear photos of the box and no speed is shown on the box at all. If the seller's asking prices weren't quite so high I would consider buying a few boxes to investigate.
Googling Super-XX, I have seen ASA speeds given from 64 to 200. I could go along with 64 but IDK about 200. Again though, maybe in 1947 they were still intentionally overexposing and the Sunny 16 rule doesn't quite apply. I'm not really sure this model of the Tourist (with the anaston lens) was considered a mass snapshot camera.
I could swear super XX is 200 ASA because the SUPER was because it was "fast" now could have been 100ASA before the change in standard lol
~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Looking at the manual for the Kodak Tourist: http://www.cameramanuals.org/kodak_p...ak_tourist.pdf
Interpolating from the recommendations there, and using Sunny 16 as the standard, I read the sensitivities of Verichrome Pan, Plus-X and Kodacolor to be equivalent to the current ISO of 25, whereas Super XX sensitivity appears to have been equivalent to the current ISO of 50.
This is the same as Jason's initial observations.
WOW! Thanks, Matt. I never looked for a manual before - although I have been on that site many times.
From Wall's Dictionary of Photography 16th ed c1943:
"Most makers of film offer films of four different types,two orthochromatic and two panchromatic.The first two are the ordinary or standard film speed of about 25 degrees Scheiner....and the chrome film of about double the speed of the ordinary film.....they are known as chrome films....Verichrome,Isochrom,Selochrome etc.Of the panchromatic films one,in most makes sold as a fine grain film, has a speed that is usually between that of the chrome and ordinary films, while the speed of the other is usually about double that of the chrome film."
The table converts degrees Scheiner to ASA, my guess that it is old ASA,not sure on this.Scheiner is very likely 25 European, it is a UK book.