Polaroid conversions

I wonder if there is any interest among DP Review members on the subject of converting old Polaroid cameras, to use 120 film in particular. I have looked this up on the internet and found some scattered postings. I have searched for this subject in various camera/photo forums and found very little if any. The "DP" in DP Review stands for digital photography, so I figured the subject of Polaroid conversions, and film use, would not have much presence in here, although the newsletters sometimes have non-digital subjects. There are various DIY subjects not necessarily related to digital cameras, and forums on film photography, and B&W photography. Seems like about everything is in here.

In the early 1990s I converted a Polaroid 800 to use 120 film. That was a totally new thing for me to do. It worked, but not the best. I've recently done that again, but better, with two Polaroids. In looking up this subject, I found that most interest seems to be for converting Polaroid cameras to use pack film, for instant pictures. "Instant" has a big following.  Some people modify them to use 4x5" glass plates, and some to use 4x5" sheet film. I found very little on converting to use 120 film. It seems there are, or have been, a few people who have a business of converting Polaroid cameras to use some other medium than the original instant film. I recently converted a J66 to use 120 film, and then a 95A. The J66 was the wrong camera to get for this, but I had forgotten why when I bought the camera. I found out later. It was made for 3000 ISO "film". I bought that camera to convert, so I went ahead and did it. I had to "gear" it to use 400 ISO film. Then I discovered that there is a modern 3200 ISO film, in 120 size, on the market that would probably work ok with this camera, without blocking light to the "electric eye". It costs too much, so I won't be using it. I will be using my 95A after I get some film, 200 ISO. I might post more on here about them.

I recently found out about using coffee, and other ingredients, to develop film.  I tried it on the first roll of film used in the J66, and it worked.  I used it on the 2nd roll also.  I have developed film before, but with commercially made chemicals.  I wanted to try the "caffinol".  Cheaper, and mixed when needed.  I ordered chemicals to make fixer, not commercially packaged fixer, but put together at home.  That was new too, to me.

You asked, "why?" One big reason, the main reason, is cost. I haven't checked on prices for various 120 film cameras, but I did look at Yashica twin lens cameras on Ebay this year, and they were mostly high--over $100 I think for most, if not all. $100, or even $200 or $300, is pocket change to a lot of people, but there are people who can't lay down even $100 for a camera. One of the old Polaroids can be bought a lot cheaper, although many of them are not so cheap now days. For somebody who has tools and likes to tinker with stuff, it is one way to get a 120 camera that is fairly good. I think the old Polaroid roll film cameras are pretty neat. anyway. They are similar to antique Kodaks. I used to have a Kodak 1A Pocket Camera, and even used that to make photos, using positive 120 film. It did well, generally, but that one had a light leak I could not find. Aside from that, it made good photos. I used to have a Yashica Matt LM, and liked it a lot, but used it only a little, a few rolls of B&W film, then sold it when I needed extra money. I wish I had kept it. I have been using digital for a long time, with the exception of using that Yashica for a short time in 2014, and an SLR with B&W film a couple times during that time. Lately I wanted to get another Polaroid and convert it to 120, and do some B&W photography with an old camera. I got the wrong camera, as I explained previously, but then bought a 95A, which I modified, but haven't tried yet. That one would be better for different reasons. I'll get some film soon and try it. I like old stuff, using old stuff. Not exclusively, but some times, with some things. A lot of old cameras are neat, I think, and it would be neat to used some of them. I liked using the Yashica. I'd like to use an RB67. It is a 'beast", as I've read, but an interesting camera.  It isn't an antique, like the old Kodaks, but being a film camera, it is outdated now, and somewhat old.  I got interested in them long ago. Lately I read about them. I couldn't get one, but I could get an old Polaroid and use that. The RB67 is too heavy to carry out on a walk in the woods, but would still be interesting to use some. Takes money for all that, and I'm old and retired, on a fixed income. The Polaroid, converted, is one way to use 120 film and dabble in all that--developing it myself.

Here is a small version of a photo I made with the Polaroid 800, in 1990, using 120 film.

One reason I wanted to convert that 800, besides getting into medium format, was to get a long frame size. The antique Kodak had a long frame size. In converting a Polaroid, that frame length can be set at different sizes. I made the J66 at 5.5 cm by 7 cm; the 95A at 5.5 cm by 9 cm. I made them 5.5 cm instead of 6 cm, on the shorter dimension, so that the film would be supported along the long sides, and not be able to maybe droop down. Anyway, most of the old roll film Polaroids have a glass lens, some referred to as "triplets". There were different lenses, some maybe better than others. I don't know much about that. From what I have read those cameras had a pretty good lens. The J66 has a plastic lens. It is the last of the line.

When I mentioned Polaroid "roll film", I was referring to the old instant picture roll film that Polaroid came out with in 1948, and continued with into the 1960s. They made several camera models that used that kind of film, as can be seen in "The Land List". Polaroid had three different sizes of that instant picture roll film. The old cameras I'm interested in used the type 40, the biggest of that film. The models 110, A & B, used type 40. The first such camera was the 95, which got it all started in 1948. Then Polaroid came out with the A and then the B versions. I have one of the A versions. It has a faster shutter, as one of the changes. I think that is the main change--went from 1/60 to 1/100.

You mentioned 3D printed adapters. I saw something about a kit for sale to modify a Polaroid. Some people have used 3D "printers" to make parts. I did it the old fashioned way--used metal and wood, and usual, normal, tools.

The 800 and other versions have a switch to set the camera for instantaneous or bulb. It defaults to instant. I don't know if they all have the same switch or something different, but I think some of them have the same kind--a very small switch on the front.

Some, if not about all of them, have a cable release socket. The 95A does, and the 800 does. The J66 does not. I assume that about all of them do. It is very good to have, and pretty much necessary I think, except for very fast film.

I didn't know about the Ciro-Flex cameras. I just looked that up, and looked at a Wiki page.  Those are interesting.  I don't know how they compare to the Yashica TL cameras.  The Yashicas are very good, as far as I know.  It is my understanding that the later ones were not built as well, not as sturdy, as older ones.  I had the "LM" model, and it was a good one.  LM stans for light meter, and the one on my camera still worked.  I think that camera was made in the 1950s.

Sounds like you have had experience with various brands and models of cameras.  Mine has been very limited.  I've had a few different SLR cameras, and still have two.  By the way, I have used a couple old Kodak box cameras with 120 film.  Mixed results.  Not much flexibility--need very good light for good exposures.  I did only a little of that.

I have no problem scanning negatives, or positives, of 6x7 or 6x9 cm size.  I have an old Epson scanner that came with film holders, including one for 120 film.  The film barely fits, and tends to slip off one edge.  Lately, I scanned negatives between two sheets of glass, to hold it flat.  I haven't printed any.  If I did, I would have to crop off too much, or have a lot of white space on the paper.  I don't do much printing.

The "Land List" tells the lens type for each camera.  Some have the "Raptar" name.  I think that is it.  I think "Wollensack"  (sp?) is in there somewhere, on a few camera models, of the early roll film type.  It is my understanding that they were pretty good lenses

To me, it is just interesting to use an old camera such as those old Polaroids, and antique Kodaks.  There is a guy in Slovenia, "Lost Light Art", who seems to be an expert in the processing side of photography, and making photos too.  He specializes in 4x5 glass, and makes his own emulsions, for dry plate negatives.  He sells them.  He has a bunch of videos, including two in which he uses an antique Kodak.  He tells how to make developer with coffee and other ingredients.  I tried that and it worked.  He tells how to make fixer, and I did that.  I have read about the old time photographers of the 1800s, and what they went through to get pictures.  My using an old converted Polaroid for medium format (I can't do bigger), and developing the film myself, is sort of a throwback to an older time.  It isn't something I can do much of,  just dabble in it a little.  You mentioned that many 6x6 cameras can be bought for under $80.  Even that is not a consideration for me.  Things are tight anyway, and now the gas prices are putting a big dent in the money supply.  I'm doing good to have an old Polaroid to use, and won't be using it much.  Novelty.  I mostly use digital.

To comment on one of your comments, the shutter speed is not fixed on the 40 series film cameras. I am not familiar with the others. The 800 and the 95 models have exposure wheels with numbers representing various combinations of shutter speed and aperture. The first cameras, 95, A and B, have a wheel labeled as "LV", or "Light Value". It is the same as "Exposure Value", or "EV", which is the norm. Polaroid came out with their LV wheel and low numbers on the 95 and 95A. I'm not sure, but I think they changed to EV numbers on the 95B. Those numbers are higher. It is a way to change the aperture and shutter speeds--gives some control over exposure. The 800 has EV numbers. A light meter, or some of them, has EV numbers. Get a reading and the EV number, and then dial in that number on the 800 or other Polaroids that use EV numbers. For the 95, the operator has to change to the LV scale, which is no big deal. A chart takes care of that. At least there is some way to control exposure.

I don't think I had a problem with Newton's Rings when scanning.  I don't remember anything like that.  I forgot what that is; had to look it up.

I just looked at what you do and have been doing.  You are waaaaayyyyy beyond me.

Thanks for the links.  I watched that video about the shutter.  On another forum somebody had posted some close-up photos of this type shutter mechanism.  This video explained it all.  It is amazing that somebody thought up this design, with all those parts interacting.  Like a watch or clock I suppose.  It is amazing that people can think up all that stuff, with so many parts.  It works.

ProfHankD wrote:

Bill-in-KY wrote:

Thanks for the links. I watched that video about the shutter. On another forum somebody had posted some close-up photos of this type shutter mechanism. This video explained it all. It is amazing that somebody thought up this design, with all those parts interacting. Like a watch or clock I suppose. It is amazing that people can think up all that stuff, with so many parts. It works.

Actually, the impressive thing is how few and how simple the parts. It's really quite an elegant bit of engineering.

You may be interested in this explanation of the shutter in the Polaroid SX-70, by the man who designed it.

http://www.wtpoptics.com/about.html

https://opensx70.com/posts/2018/11/sx70-shutter

If I am understanding this correctly, it appears that this shutter beneficially affects the PSF/MTF of the image and was designed to do so. Is this similar to the the later attempts by Minolta, in the 7 series of SLRs, to obtain a pseudo-STF effect, by means of multiple exposures at differing apertures but done in a single pass?

The Polaroid SX-70 included many innovations: aspheric mirror, Fresnel mirror and a 12000 rpm motor that could star and stop in 0.0066 second! It deserves its place in design museums and the Science Museum in London. Mint produced a refurbished SX-70 called the SLR670, with modified circuitry that allowed shutter speeds of 1/2000 second.

https://www.technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/

https://mint-camera.com/SLR670/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7sqF9Iao-AIV0t_tCh0DKAUFEAMYASAAEgIWwfD_BwE

This post is about the Polaroid J-66 that I converted a couple months ago.

Polaroid J-66 converted to use modern 120 roll film.

The J-66 is not a good one to convert, but that is what I bought earlier this year, as explained in my first post, so I worked on it anyway to see how it would do. This camera was made to use Polaroid 3000 ISO instant picture film. The shutter, a pneumatic type, is controlled by the light meter, the "electric eye", as it was called then. In this photo, the light sensor /meter is to the right of the lens, and it is covered by a light blocking cover that I made out of plastic. My intention was to reduce the amount of light getting to the meter so as to cause slower shutter speeds. Polaroid made a similar cover, with diagonal slits, for the same purpose, in order to use their color film, which was much slower. I was trying to get my camera to be compatible with 400 ISO 120 film. It worked, but with mixed results.

Polaroid J-66 converted to use modern120 roll film.

This photo shows the back open with just backing paper on the spools. A new roll of film would be set in the right chamber. I did a lot of trial and error with this camera, trying to get the paper to "flow" easily from right to left, to the take-up spool. This is my final configuration. The spool on the right is just set in there unattached, with the wood "wheels" acting as spacers. At first, and for various trial fittings. I had the spool attached to short spindles, with springs for spacers. It had a lot of drag, and could hang up near the latter part of the paper. Eventually I tried it like this and it worked fairly well.

Polaroid J-66 converted to use modern 120 roll film.

When I converted that model 800 camera back in the early 1990s, I didn't make a viewing window to see the frame numbers on the backing paper. Big difference. I used a sacrifice roll of film to count revolutions of the winder wheel, which was doable, but not convenient, nor accurate. I had a little overlapping in the few rolls I used. Generally, it worked, but with mixed results. It was just awkward. This time, I cut holes through two plates, this cover, and the film pressure plate on the other side, and glued on a little oval of translucent plastic. This is much better, of course. To see the numbers and other markings on the paper, I open this door just for that, then close it when done.

Polaroid J-66 converted to use modern 120 roll film.

This is an earlier photo, from April, in the early part of conversion. It shows my first configuration for the right chamber, which I later discarded. I included this photo to show the frame I put in there to frame a photo. The inside dimensions are 5.5cm x 7cm. I made it narrower than 6cm on the short sides so as to have rails for the film to lay on. Without it, the film might sag down a little if not held taught, and it could happen, ruining the focus. In this photo, the frame is green, my first painting. I later painted it black after I bought some. In this camera, the luan fits ok behind the bellows. For the 95A, it is different--not quite as much room. I had to use thinner material, some plastic from a plastic clipboard. For the J-66, my first thought was the luan, and I used that. I used super glue gel to glue it in at the corners, and a bit in some other places. I later found that the 5.5 x 6 cm frame size worked ok. It is not too long. I wanted a rectangle, instead of 6cm square, and decided on what I used. For my 95A, I use a size of 5.5cm x 9cm, and that didn't work--too long. Frames overlapped. I had to make a new one, same size as for the J-66. By the way, I removead the heavy rollers to reduce weight.

Polaroid J-66.

In this photo, the light meter is showing, and the needle in the window on top, which has a light half and a dark half. The lens ring on the front can be turned to adjust exposure, by changing the aperture. I happened to get the user manual with this camera, but they can be found online. Adjusting exposure can be a little tricky, but wasn't too bad. I got some pictures. This camera was made for fast film, to be hand-held usually, so it wasn't equipped with a cable release socket. The shutter is cocked with that lever on the left, and then the shutter button pushed. This can cause camera shake. The pneumatic shutter has a bit of delay, so I was counting on that to "cover" for any shake. A sturdy tripod is necessary.

My first roll, of only two used, had mixed results, and so did the second. Nothing real sharp, but close enough. My computer did some sharpening. I tried different exposures, from "N" for normal, to wide open. I might have overdone it a little, or developed too long. Somewhat dark. My 2nd roll had some frames blurred, and/or underexposed. I'm used to digital now days, although I used film for decades. Now, I just push a button. On the Polaroid, I forgot some times to advance the film, and got multiple exposures--ruined some frames. Takes a little getting used to. I used caffinol for developer, at 12 min for those rolls. I used one roll in the 95A, and developed for 11 min; still too long I believe. Anyway, here are some photos from the J-66.

Old feed mill and store.

This was my 2nd scan and better.

Big old house not far away.

I use Photoshop Elements to work on photos. I tried different scans and treatments. This one is fairly good, although I got some streaks at the bottom. I got some streaking and other elements in all this. Sharpening with the computer is necessary. The J-66 has a plastic lens.

Old church.

I guess that will do for now. I'm into the 2nd roll on the 95A, with the shorter frame inside.

Friday morning: I want to add a little more to this. After I did the conversion, I looked up film to buy online, and found that there is modern 120 film in 3200 ISO. It is too expensive for me, but I thought that it would work about right for this camera, without the cover over the light meter. It was made for 3000 ISO, so it seemed plausible that the cover could be removed and the camera used hand-held, and exposure could be set by the light meter needle indicator as originally intended. I won't be doing that. A couple nights ago I looked up 3200 ISO film reviews, and found some for Ilford. Reviewers said it is actually 1000 ISO, with a lot of latitude, and can be shot at 6400 ISO and even beyond. Seems far-fetched to me, but they did it I guess. If it is not a true 3200 ISO, I don't know if it would work in this J-66, as it was originally set up. If it is a true 1000 ISO film, seems that this would throw off exposures, since the camera was made for 3000 ISO. Of course the exposure could be manipulated by changing the aperture, but a person couldn't go strictly by what the light meter needle shows. That's my thinking. A person would have to do some trial and error to see how it worked out. I'll skip it.

I used Arista-Edu 400 ISO film, two rolls, in this camera, and developed with caffinol.

This is about the J-66.  I just made an update (today) on my last long post, mainly about my 95A, but included a bit about the J-66.

I used my last roll of 120 film in the J-66.  I didn't want to put any more on the 95A because of the first two rolls not turning out right.  I have since found the cause of one problem, and fixed that.  It is in my update on the other post.

These cameras were made to use the Polaroid series 40 roll "film".  Picture rolls is another term that would apply.   The picture size (paper) is 3 1/4" x 4 1/4".  The actual image size is 2 7/8" x 3 3/4".  This info is from "The Land List".  I included this in my update at the bottom of that other post.  Here is a close approximation of what one of those pictures would look like, using a photo I made recently with the J-66.

Old L&N train depot in Stanford, KY.

I made this with a white border, but made a copy with a black border so it would show up on this white background.

The J-66 has a simple meniscus lens made of plastic, and it was intended for small pictures, such as this.  It wasn't made for enlarged pictures.  The other Polaroid cameras in this series have a glass lens, of one kind or another.  Some have a "triplet" lens, as does the 95A  I don't know how good they are, but they should be better than this plastic meniscus lens.

Here are some photos I made with the J-66 recently, with that last roll.

Train yard, Danville, Ky.

Old L&N train depot in Stanford, Ky.

Old mill in Stanford, Ky.

Polaroid 95A

I got some visual "noise' on this roll, more on some frames than others, and had to do some adjusting with my Photoshop Elements.  I couldn't do much for this photo of the camera, but improved the others shown here.  This happened during development.  It is the only roll that has come out like that.  I did less agitation on that roll, and I suspect that is the reason.

I won't be using the J-66 any more.  I'd like to use the 95A if it will work right.  I solved the fogging problem, but still have the overlapping issue to figure out.  I discussed this in my update on the other post.

Update on the 95A

I bought one roll of film to try the 95A one more time.  I adjusted the viewing window, and fixed the light leaks, so I thought.  I could put a flashlight inside the bellows and see the pinpoints of light, and painted some black acrylic paint on them.  That appeared to fix the leaks.  I had put sealer in the three main holes that were causing bad leaks.  After all that, I tried the 3rd roll, not all in one place.  No overlapping this time.  The first photo didn't come out well.  Too much contrast, an old house partly in shade.  Next three were some close photos, and I forgot to set the distance slider on the bed for close range, so they weren't in good focus.  I did try using a strobe flash, and that worked fairly well.  I set the shutter on B, and then squeezed the cable release with one hand, and fired a flash with the other hand.  That flash was not made for a Polaroid, and it was not attached.  I used it independently.

I used the computer to sharpen it somewhat.  My main reason for putting this here is to show the result of using that flash.  I was a few feet from the door, and I thought later that it was probably too far, but it turned out not bad.

Here are three more made in downtown Richmond, Ky.

Richmond, Ky

I thought I had the light leaks fixed, but after I developed the film, I found streaks in some of the photos.  I made the mistake of carrying the camera around with the bellows pulled out.  Most of this one is ok.

Richmond, Ky.   Old courthouse, I assume.

This one has a horizontal streak in the middle.  A horizontal photo that I'm not including has a vertical streak in about the same place.  Generally, it is ok, for what made it.

Richmond, Ky

This is the best one out of the 8.  I darkened the original a little bit.  I had the exposure wheel set on 6.  The light meter indicated an EV of 17, which is 7 on the Polaroid old scale, the LV scale (wheel), but I set it on 6 to make sure it got enough exposure.  It's a good thing I did.  The other two were set on 6 also.  They came out a little darker than this one.  I darkened only this one with the computer.

Anyway, I'm done with those two Polaroids.  I wish I had started with one that has a rangefinder focusing system.  That would be a lot better.  As it was, I got what I could, and experimented with them.  If I found a better one, cheap, I might buy it and try that.  A model 110 would be the best, as far as I know, but they are costly.  If I were to mess with film anymore, it would be better to have a regular film camera, of medium format size, and one of good quality with a good lens, or lenses.  Of course that costs plenty.  I might run across one at a low price some time, somewhere.  I'd like to have an RB67, but that is dreaming.  Meanwhile, I'll use my digital cameras.  My best one is a "full frame" Canon.

Thank you for the tips and links.  You mentioned the Cero Flex early in this group of discussions, and I looked that up.  I didn't know about them.  Look to be pretty good.  I have not seen any.  As I mentioned early on, I used to have a Yashica Mat LM, and it is a neat camera, and a good one.  I sold it a few years ago for some extra money.  Should have kept it.  I had quit using it, and didn't figure on doing it again, so it was sold.  Things change, one way or another.  I still like film cameras, but using film costs money, and is somewhat of a hassle, with having to develop it.  I learned about caffinol and tried it, because of this Polaroid adventure.  It is cheaper than buying commercially made developer and fixer.  I did buy two chemicals through Ebay to make fixer.  I think that is a little cheaper.  Some people just have to be cost conscious, and I'm sure there are many others out there.

I like the TLR type camera in general.  I used to have an Argus 75, but it is a basic, fixed camera, no adjustments.  It did make good photos.  I wouldn't mind having another better TLR that has adjustments, like the Yashica I had, or one of the other brands.  I rarely see any, anywhere I go.  Flea markets are just about devoid of cameras, and similar stores, although I find a few here and there. Never a good TLR.  Online is about the only way to shop for cameras, and then there is the shipping cost, which goes up now and then.

One note about the bellows on that 95A:  I got the tiny light leaks covered, but working the bellows out and in several times afterward caused them to open up again.  I happened to have some black acrylic paint, so I used that to cover the holes, which were so tiny that I couldn't see them, on the outside, with a 10x loupe.  I could only see them by looking in the back end and holding the camera up to the sky, or a strong light.  I found them while looking over the camera and I happened to raise it toward the sky.  I had suspected light leaks in the bellows, but I didn't see any holes. Later, I put a flashlight inside and saw the pinpoints of light from the outside.  So, the paint didn't seal them for long.  Yes, it would be better to use a film camera that doesn't have a bellows, and light leaks to contend with.  It is kind of neat using old cameras.  Novelty.  I used a Kodak box camera, small one, in the '80s with two or three rolls of film, and got some decent results.  That was just a novelty, to try it and see what came out.  I won't be using one again.  I mentioned early on that I used to have an antique Kodak, a Pocket 1A, and used 2 or 3 rolls of positive color film with it.  It made good photos, but it had a light leak that showed up in some of them.  Interesting to use.

Anyway, I guess that is all I'll do with film for a while.   I might acquire another medium format film camera later on, a good kind, and good condition hopefully, and I'll give that a try.