Kodak Six-20
One of my favorite vintage cameras is my Kodak Junior Six-16 Series II. Unfortunately, it uses 616 film, which was discontinued in 1984. Darn good thing that camera looks good sitting on my shelf, because that’s all it’s good for.
Kodak also produced a Junior Six-20 camera, identical except that it uses 620 film. Even though that film was discontinued in 1995, it is the same stuff as 120 film, except that it is wound around a narrower spool. 120 is still made and, as the professional standard, is widely available. Because you can roll 120 film onto a 620 spool — or just buy it pre-respooled from B&H Photo — any working 620 camera can still take photos.
Unable to try my beautiful Junior Six-16, I began looking for a Junior Six-20. Along the way, I learned that there was a senior Six-16 and Six-20, even more beautiful because their styling had art deco details. And then I found a Six-20 in good cosmetic condition on eBay for $30. Nab!
The Kodak Six-20 was manufactured from 1932 to 1937. It cost $38 when new, which is equivalent to a whopping $606 today. It packs a 100mm f/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat lens, which is probably a three-element Cooke triplet type. It was considered a good quality lens at the time. The Kodon shutter is nothing special, though.
The camera sports two viewfinders. The first is a small “brilliant” type attached to the lens assembly that swivels to frame portrait and landscape photos. The second is a gunsight type attached to the camera body; it frames only landscape photos. As you can see, my Six-20′s brilliant finder is foggy.
What really set the Six-20 apart was its art deco styling. This photo shows not only some of those details, but that I needed to do a better job of wiping the dust off my camera before I photographed it. The button next to the film winder opens the self-erecting bellows.
Even the folding mechanism is attractive on the Six-20.
The Kodak Six-20 takes eight 6 cm × 9 cm photos on every roll of 620 film. I loaded some Kodak Plus-X 100 and went to town, albeit briefly, as it takes little time to snap eight shots. I shot using the Sunny 16 rule. Aside from the foggy brilliant viewfinder, the camera itself functioned well. But I’m not particularly happy with the scans I got back from the processor. Actually, they didn’t make scans – they photographed the negatives with a digital camera and reversed the images in Photoshop. The negatives look better than these images. I think I’ll use a different processor next time! But my habit is to show you photos from the first roll I shoot, and so here you go.
This is the shed in my back yard. I had to do some fancy footwork in Paint Shop Pro (because I’m too cheap to buy Photoshop) to make the image look this good. I used the gunsight viewfinder to frame this shot, but then cropped the image to improve the composition.
This is the entrance of Second Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis. I used the brilliant viewfinder to frame this image. It’s hard to line things up in such a small window! I also couldn’t tell that I wasn’t holding the camera quite level, which caused the image to come out at a crazy angle. I straightened it out in Paint Shop Pro and cropped it to this size.
I cropped and tweaked this image a little, too, but there was really no saving it. Most of the remaining images came out ghostly like this. Did I underexpose them? A couple other images were speckled like this one, too.
Even though I was disappointed in these results, I have no regrets. This camera was fun to use, and I am sure I’ll shoot with it again soon. My mind is already working on things I might do differently next time. For example, I think I’ll use my tripod to level the camera, and perhaps I’ll try faster film. If you have experience with old folders, please leave me some tips in the comments!
Do you like old cameras? Then check out my entire collection!
Wow, these shots look so cool! Never mind faking up faux aged shots in Photoshop, you’ve got a genuine factory. These things could make me believe someone drove their Prius back to 1920 if you just had the right background. :)
It would be one thing if I were trying for the effect I got, but I really wanted clear, crisp photos! Oh well. I am now on a quest to find a versatile camera that takes 120 that I can use when I want to be artzy phartzy.
Just goes to show you. I’d be all over a camera that could give me results like that (were it digital, that is)… every couple of weekends in the summer I’d be looking for places I could make look believably antique. Don’t give up the ship! :)
There’s got to be some post-processing you can to to achieve this effect, using any camera you’ve got!
My dad had a camera like this and I took some pictures with it about 20 years ago. They were wonderful, crisp and contrasty black and white. This was in the days when you could still take film like that into a corner processing place and not get surprised looks. I think the processing might be the problem. But your images are lovely anyway.
I’m hoping you’re right, that it was a processing problem!
Hey Jim,
I justs bought this camera (along with a 2a Folding Autographic Brownie [$20] and Janus Foldout [$15]) from a local Goodwill for $15.00. It looks to be in stellar shape. I’m looking forward to taking a few rolls of film and shooting some pics with it. I’m in the midst of cleaning it, as there is dust on the lense and details and the “brilliant” sight needs some cleaning. But I have to say I’m thrilled. Your work with the camera is inspiring. Any pointers you can pass along would be truly appreciated. I’ll continue to check out your site for updates. I hope all is well.
Dave
Well, like I said in the post, I’d try mounting it on a tripod so you’re sure of level shots. Framing with the tiny brilliant finder is no picnic. And if you don’t process your own film, be sure you have a good lab lined up! I have to admit, I fumble and stumble my way through my first roll (or two or three) in each of my vintage cameras. That’s half the fun!
I also have a 620 format Kodak folder with a similar lens (probably an uncoated Cooke triplet) and when stopped down to around f/22, it is amazingly sharp! I use ASA400 wide latitude B&W (Ilford HP5+) with it to ensure the small aperture and less focusing error. And yes, I agreed that scans from lab, even they are doing “true” film scan, are often less than satisfactory. Most of the time, they do an automatic exposure on the film scan and thus many details from the highlights and the shadows will be gone. That’s why I ended up getting my own scanner (more economical in long run!)
Yeah, I have my eye on an Epson V600 scanner. I’ll be rescanning these when I get it. Good tip about using film with wide latitude.
These cameras usually do a great job if cleaned and using a decent film. I have had good luck with Ilford FP4. I use an old GE PR-1 incident meter. I never have good luck using sunny 16.
I have a PR-1 and have used it, but I’ve had good luck with Sunny 16 — well, at least on other cameras!