Dupont Superior 2: Take 2

I decided to load up the Asahi Pentax K1000 (one of my fav 35mm cameras) with some Dupont Superior 2 film and give it another go-round this weekend. And I have to say, once I lost the fisheye lens, changed cameras and made better metering decisions (i.e., metering at 64 as opposed to 100), I'm left with the impression that this film, despite having expired in 1966 and not (I suspect) being stored all these years under optimal conditions is more than capable of taking pretty neato images.

Chris and I headed to the Inner Harbor yesterday but on Saturday, I took a few test shots around the house. Pretty grainy and a tad underexposed, but still much better than my first attempt.


















The results were better and a bit more consistent with the Inner Harbor shots. It was a beautiful sunny day. I still had problems with what appears to be uneven development (or light leaks?) That is to say, the Inner Harbor images tended to be lighter toward the right side of the frame and I also had some sprocket ghosting (see above), but was much, much happier with the results. In fact, there is something Diana-y about these shots. I'd love, in fact, to run some of this through the Diana 151 but am afraid that unless I shoot the roll on the bulb setting, they will all end up terrifically underexposed. A sampling of some of the other shots taken during this second test round appear below:

Dupont Superior 2 test

Chris spotted this canister of film--Dupont Superior 2--online last week and since the price was right, I had to try it. It's been hard to find much online about this film. What intrigued us from the get-go was the military expiration date on the film--June, 1966. That and the fact that it was made by Dupont--not a name I've been accustomed to associating with film.

The canister arrived Wednesday. Since the film is packaged on a motion picture reel, I couldn't just put the whole thing in the bulk loader as I normally would. Rather, I cut off a portion of film--enough for 30 exposures or so--and loaded that into the film loader and spooled up one test cartridge.

The film has an asa of 125, but since it was long expired, I decided to meter the first test roll at 100. Turns out, I might have gone 64 or so instead. As luck would have it, the weather on Thursday and Friday was pretty drab and rainy, so I had to do most of the test roll indoors which meant I had to contend with pretty low-light conditions. Not a good choice for this film. The good news, however, is that the film can still take/make an image.

Besides having to contend with low-light conditions, I made the less-than-brilliant choice to couple the Holga fisheye lens with the regular wide-angle lens I had on the Canon AE-1 Program. I'm guessing this messed up the metering while making the job of focusing a real challenge. Most of the shots on the test roll were out of focus and unexposed and the negatives were very thick or dense--lacking in contrast.
The best shots on the test roll were those that I didn't use the extra fisheye lens with and/or those that I took outdoors. This office shot, for example, and the one below of my brand new (to me) bun steamer!

















Since the weather is looking much better for this weekend, I've decided to run another test roll--this time using one of my Pentax Spotmatics, and taking shots outdoors. I've lost the fisheye lens and will meter the next roll at 64 and just hope for the best--or at least hope for better results than I had the first go-round. Speaking of which, I did a Diafine dev with the first test roll, but might try something else--HC-110 or a Rodinal stand.

A sampling of some of the other test shots appears below:

a reason to rethink my top five?

For some time now, I've not wavered on my list of top five favorite cameras. This said, having finally gotten around to testing the Bratz camera I got for 80 cents last March, it may be time for me to rethink that list.

I'd worked with this particular camera before--well, kinda. The 35mm mini Bratz cam a quirky little thing--a small, plastic promo/give away camera that came packaged with Bratz dolls. NOTE: The thing is a real pain in the ass to load, and frankly, each time I load the camera I worry that it may well be the last time I'm able to use the camera. To explain: A new film cartridge must be placed upside down in the right side of the camera. The film is then wound (by way of a very, very fragile plastic winder on the bottom of the camera) to the other side (i.e., the supply side) of the camera. This is done, of course, with the back of the camera closed. There is no need to rewind the roll when finished since cranking the film advance wheel between shots essentially winds the exposed film back into the 35mm cartridge.

When I got my first Bratz camera, I immediately took it apart and flipped the lens. In order, however, to keep the lens in place, I needed to glue it in place which meant that I wasn't able to reverse the lens and see what the camera could do--or might have done--before I flipped the lens. But then, back in March, I found another Bratz mini cam. I'm not sure why I put off testing the new Bratz for so long. I guess I hadn't really expected much of the unflipped version and with so many other cameras still left to test, well, this one just kinda got lost in the shuffle.

Long story short, I finally got around to testing the camera this fall and I think I've taken it on every shoot since. Like I said to start, this is a serious contender for the top five fav list. Problem is, I'm not quite sure which camera it might knock out of its top position. Featured below is a sampling of the different images I've taken with the regular (non-flipped lens) Bratz. The image above depicts the same farm scene taken with the regular and flipped lens Bratz cams.

well, that's more like it!

Meet the new Kowa. In light (no pun intended) of the problems I had been having with the first Kowa I bought--the Kowa/Six--I decided to return that one for a refund and purchased the Kowa Super 66 instead. It wasn't that I necessarily preferred the Super 66 over the Six or SixMM, it was more a matter of price, availability, and whether or not the seller had a return option.

As soon as the new Kowa arrived, I did a black and white test roll and I tried, best as I could, to switch up the lighting conditions. The test roll looked pretty good. I'm thinking this is a keeper. I still need to do a color test roll with the 85mm lens--the sampling below was taken with a 55 mm wide angle lens.

when it was good, it happened to be very good. . .

. . .problem is, my recently acquired Kowa/Six was not always (or at least not consistently enough) good. Later today I will be sending it back to the seller.

To be sure, I'm bumming about having to return the camera, but after running two test rolls through it, what I was seeing is that the camera worked fine, quite wonderfully, in fact, so long as I was using it indoors or outdoors in low-light or shady areas. Problem was taking it outdoors. More specifically so, taking it outdoors and using it when the sun was out.

In those instances, this tended to happen. Blah. What a hot, hot mess.

But I suppose I should backtrack a bit. I bought the Kowa/Six after learning about it and its potentials from a flickr contact. I was drawn to this particular camera because it had a Model II exposure finder. (This meant that I didn't receive the regular hood with the item, but that's fine--I'd rather have the meter.) My first problem with the camera had to do with the fact that while the meter was, indeed, sensitive to light, its readings were wildly off. Holy cow. For instance, if a correct-ish reading was f2.8 @ 1/60, this was coming up f22 at 500. Just nuts. I even tried swapping out the battery it came with and trying a new one. The readings were still wildly off. I was bummed about having to find other ways of metering the shots, but I was--at least at that point--determined to make it work with the camera. I shot my first test roll and, as I said to start, the indoor shots and/or shots taken in indirect/low light--a sampling of which appear below--were okay, pretty good, in fact. What I noticed, however, with the first roll was a kind of banded light-leak formation that appeared toward the center and top of each image taken outside, in direct sunlight. I did a little research on Kowa light leaks (and, while I was at it, on exposure finders) and learned that in cases where the seals on backs aren't well maintained there can be light leaks. As far as the meter situation went, I read of at least one other person whose readings were as wildly off as mine were. Yet by that time, I had pretty much decided to write off (or work around) the exposure finder's quirks.

But back to the light leaks. My sense was that my problem had less to do with light seeping in through the sides, top and bottom of the back than with perhaps a shutter issue (i.e., that was the only way I could account for the center banding marks--side/top/bottom light leaks would leave a different kind of mark on the negs), but I went ahead and taped up the top and sides of the camera anyway and took it out again. Could taping the camera have intensified the light leaks? Of course not, but that's how I felt. The banding problem was much worse this time around. To be fair, the day I headed out to test the taped-up camera was a pretty sunny day.

My sense was that this would make for a really great indoor or low-light camera. Problem was, I want a camera that I can use both indoors and out. Between the banding problem (something that's clearly beyond my knowledge, talent and patience to remedy) and the wacky-ass meter, well, it just wasn't, I didn't think, a camera worth hanging onto. So it will be heading back to the seller later today. To be clear: I am not at all suggesting that the seller mis-represented anything about the camera--everything seems to look and sound like it's working as it should be. The only way you would know that things are off would be to shoot a test roll or two of film.

In the meantime, I've found a listing for another Kowa (this one is a Super 66) and I think I'll give that a go, keeping my fingers crossed that this one will respond to the outdoors and to sunlight better than the last one did. Thank goodness for return policies, huh?