imperial madness

The greatest compliment I can give a camera (or camera maker) is when I double-, triple-, quadruple- or even quintuple-up on that particular camera fearing that I will break, lose, etc. the only one I have. With a camera like the holga (something that is still easily obtained), the desire to double or triple up is not as pronounced as it is with something like the bhf, ultronic panoramic or vistaquest vq 350. Still, if favs are measured in terms of duplicates, I guess for me, in first place would be the bhf (I have 6-7 of them at this point) followed by diana (5 counting mini and clones), holga (4 counting woca and tlr), ultronic panoramic (3 or 4), and vistaquest vq350 (2).

At this point, I'd have to add to that list the imperial reflex duo lens. I just bought my second one two days ago and I have to say that if they were cheaper and/or if there were more of them, I think I'd keep buying them up--tough to find them in my price range (i.e., 5-10 bucks). There's not a whole lot out there on the camera, save that it's a simple plastic box 620 camera produced by George Herbert in Chicago in the '50s and that there was a version marked "OFFICIAL CAMERA, Boy Scouts of America." In terms of finding more of these on ebay, it could be helpful to search under boy scouts as well. The camera's other claim to fame has to do with these famous backyard photos.













If you search the camera on flickr, you mainly get images of the camera/s and ttv images (see phone image directly above)--as is the case with other tlr cameras that take 620 film like the ansco rediflex.

Here's the deal: Firstly, when they say the imperial is a plastic camera, boy howdy, they mean it! When the first one arrived (see image above), I was taken aback by how light, cheap and fragile it felt in hand. Reminded me a bit of the difference between having the holga versus the diana in hand. In other words, I was used to the way the ansco rediflex or kodak duoflex felt in hand and was expecting the imperial to feel the same. Not the case at all! I think I've been motivated to buy a second one, in part, because I love the images it takes and, in part, because I know that if this puppy happens to fall out of my hand or purse, it's likely a goner. (FWIW in contrast to the camera depicted here, I got the gray and black version as a back-up.)

A second thing to know about this camera is that when it says that it uses 620 film, it ain't playing. I have read that others have used 120 but that definitely wasn't the case for me--at least not with the black version. In so far as even trimmed-down spools wouldn't work here, I had to learn to respool 120 film onto 620 spools. A hassle at first but it gets easier after time and I'd say that the extra work involved with respooling is definitely worth it for this camera!

A third thing worth mentioning about this camera has to do with the shutter button/release. I wasn't prepared for the way this would look and so I assumed that the button had been messed up or bent back as a result of the seller's really poor packing job. Didn't help that the camera was pretty dirty when it arrived and that the shutter itself only functioned correctly half the time. If, in other words, the camera had been in mint condition or NIB I probably wouldn't have tried dicking around with the shutter release, trying to bend it back into position. YIKES! I thank goodness now that I didn't try harder and bust the shutter release. For what it's worth, the shutter release doesn't look like the releases on other cheap box/tlr cameras.

The final thing I'd mention in terms of the camera itself is that it's not the greatest choice for clear, clean ttv work as the very grainy phone image above suggests. I like the look of ttv images you can get from this camera but it's not the same look afforded by, say, the ansco rediflex.

Based on the craptastic condition of the camera when it arrived (by the by, a little elbow grease, windex and wd40 got things cleaned up and working), the graininess of the top viewfinding lens, and how fragile/cheap the camera felt in hand, I definitely wasn't expecting much at all from this camera. Never mind that in order to use it I would have to respool film. Truthfully, it didn't help that I could find so few film images (i.e., non-ttv images) housed on flickr. This too led me to believe that this would definitely NOT be a camera I'd end up raving about!

But here it is: I LOVE THIS CAMERA. If it weren't so fragile, I'd have it with me all the time. (Luckily it does have a neck strap, so that's cool--makes carrying it around easy and there's less of a chance of breakage if it's around my neck.) I think there's only been one other time when I've actually gasped (i.e., in a good way) upon seeing the first scanned-in image taken when testing a new camera. The other time was when I did my first test roll with the ultronic panoramic. I definitely wasn't prepared for those results or for the kind of images that camera can produce!

















But back to the imperial. I think my reaction to seeing the first scanned-in image was this: "(gasp) How delightfully cartoonish!!" I'm still not sure what that means--to say that a photograph looks cartoonish. I think it might have to do with the depth of focus. Suffice it to say, that I am LOVING this camera. I have a respooled roll of b/w in the camera right now and am eager to see those results. I've consider different ways of rating the cameras I talk about here, such as using some kind of star system (i.e., giving a camera 1 star for fair/poor and 5 stars for excellent). In the end, I think it makes the most sense to treat things in terms of replacement costs. Otherwise put, to rate cameras in terms of how much I could image myself spending to replace them in the case that the one/s I have happened to break, get lost, etc. In this case, I think I'd be willing to spend 45-70 bucks for a working replacement. . .and keep in mind this is coming from a very cheap and definitely not rich individual!

iko-iko

i love this camera. sure, like the diana+ it too can be a little quirky and (at the risk of comparing a cheaply-made plastic cam to a really, really heavy, solidly-built tlr) i'd argue that the ikoflex, like diana+, is a fairly high-maintenance camera. that said, it seems that the aspects that make the iko-iko sometimes difficult to work with are opposite of the things that make diana+ difficult to work with. for instance, while i worry about dropping (and breaking) both cameras, diana+ feels like nothing much while you can definitely feel the weight of the ikoflex. and people actually wore these around their necks? yipes. the ikoflex is definitely not a strollable camera--not one you'd (or I'd) grab and take on a nature hike.

















but i do love the photos it takes. i remember vividly when the first batch of negatives came back. i had been used to working with the holga, diana+ and the flipped-lens bhf and the sharpness of the ikoflex images, the way they seemed almost 3-D by comparision, was really jarring--but in a really good way.

. . .and even when the images are not that sharply in focus they are still interesting to me. (in my defense, it was really, really hard to hold this thing above my head while trying to compose, focus, etc. the shot. i tried a second shot but by that time my arms were shaking so much, well, that one was blurrier still.)


i'm not sure how or why i began thinking about the ikoflex since i had been on this russian camera kick at the time. i think i might have been researching lubitels when i came across this most excellent resource --a site that ended up serving (for the better part of the summer anyway) as a shopping/wish list generator of sorts. if i saw an image on flickr that i liked, i'd check to see if the camera was listed on the site and if the feedback was good, i'd go to ebay to see if one could be had and (if so) how much it might be had for.

when i saw the zeiss ikon ikoflex listed on ebay, it was originally listed as a Ia. but it's not--it's an early model IIa from 1950. while waiting for the camera to arrive, i downloaded and began looking at the manual for the Ia--i had been cautioned that this camera can be tricky to load and i wanted to get my mind around what i'd need to do to avoid loading problems and botching rolls of film. once the camera arrived things didn't necessarily translate from the manual to experience and it took a while for me to figure out that the camera i had in my hands was not, in fact, a Ia.

as i tended to spend the summer buying cameras in pairs (the holga and the diana, the zorki 4 and the kiev am), i was, at this same time, hoping to pick up a reasonably-priced yashica-D. i remember vividly hauling both cameras, my tripod and my digital camera (aka "light meter") up to campus on really, really hot day in June, eager to shoot test rolls with both cameras. yipes. definitely not strolling cameras.

the ikoflex is tricky to load--after you've wound the film on, you have to manually position the counter on the side to "1". if you forget this step, iko-iko acts up. problem is, the manual says that you are supposed to move the counter clockwise but i'm not thinking my likes moving in that direction. then again, i had a few botched shots with yesterday's film--times when the film advanced a bit beyond where it should have stopped so maybe i should have insisted we moved in a clockwise direction.

the viewing glass is really, really bright (making the iko more enjoyable to work with than the ysahica) but my ikoflex's duds are a bit worn and ragged in places--it could definitely use a new outfit (maybe something in saddle tan?)--but i find particularly daunting the idea of diy camera recovering. maybe it's something i can work up the courage to attempt next summer.

twin lens reflex test

Another batch of negatives arrived yesterday, so the afternoon turned out to be a scan-fest (yawn). I received the test shots for the Foldex-20, Yashica D, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex, Vivitar ultra wide and slim, and the Diana+ pinhole shots. Save for a lot of overexposed Foldex shots (I went bulb/time-setting crazy again) and a few underexposed (nice change for me) shots with the Vivitar, it was the best batch of negatives to date. All by way of saying, most of the shots were in the ballpark of being properly exposed which meant much less work for me (and photoshop). Wisely, I think, I dealt with the Foldex and Vivitar negatives first since I could see that they had more problems than the other rolls. I saved the tlrs for last which was smart as I was most pleased with how those turned out. Last night I was anyway. Looking at the images this morning, I’m wishing they were better, other, different, etc. Or maybe it’s better to say that I wish I were better, other, different in terms of taking photographs. Not surprisingly, perhaps, my favorite shots are those that feature different subject matter, things I’ve not attempted to photograph before—like the stairs image above, shot with the Yashica. Then again, part of the plan for test rolls was to photograph the same things so I’d have some point of comparison to judge what was happening. I’m actually eager to receive the next batch of negatives as most of those images are of things I’ve not photographed before. Not a woods, tricycle, kitchen table, or coneflower image in the bunch. (well, maybe there will be one or two.) Still. . .

As far as the tlr images go, I’m feeling less pleased with them today so I’ll try to remember what I was thinking while I was scanning them in yesterday. I did the images from the Ikoflex first—not sure why, exactly. I know that the person from whom I bought the camera said that I should shoot a test roll and if I wasn’t happy with the camera or results, we could work something out—an exchange or refund. Maybe that’s why I started with those negatives? After seeing the first image, I remember thinking, “Oh my gosh—so this is what it’s like shooting 120 film when you actually have a shot at controlling how the pictures come out!” Nothing against the Holga, Diana+, Foldex-20, or Brownie Hawkeye as I love working with them, but I recognized that this was a totally different shooting experience. It made me even more committed to saving up for my dream camera—the Kiev 88 SWC.

The Ikoflex is much easier to take pictures with—the focusing is great (see image of water glass below) and I was really pleased with the sharpness of these pictures. The compositions were a little off but I like the DoF. In short, I was really excited about the results yesterday. With the Yashica, it’s a little harder to focus—to see exactly what you’re getting. That said, the colors were really, well, interesting (see bike image below) and, all in all, I think I took more interesting shots with the Yashica—meaning that the compositions were a little bit more interesting. I also tended to experiment more with what I was focusing on—or where. That is to say, I wasn’t focusing on whatever was at the center of the composition (see ivy/spout shot below).

"just water"


















"big wheel"


















"ivy"